A federal judge in Florida ruled a U.S. law that prohibits people from having firearms in post offices to be unconstitutional, the latest court decision declaring gun restrictions violate the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, cited the 2022 Supreme Court ruling “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen” that expanded gun rights. The 2022 ruling recognized the individual’s right to bear a handgun in public for self-defense.

The judge shared her decision in the indictment that charged Emmanuel Ayala, U.S. Postal Service truck driver, with illegal possession of a firearm in a federal building.

  • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Last time I checked killing people is still murder in Florida, which is a crime.

    There are many other common everyday items in society that can kill people if misused, yet they are not illegal in the post office.

    Edit: Wow soo many downvotes for simply pointing out the fact that murder is still illegal in Florida.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      killing people is still murder in Florida, which is a crime

      No, no, and no. If your are president you can totally murder and it is not a crime unless you are impeached and convicted - heard from a source that is considered reliable in Florida.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, Florida is a stand your ground state. We have no legal obligation to flee when attacked. We can fight back and use lethal force if necessary.

          • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those skittles and hoodie were so much more dangerous than any gun.

            Still don’t get how he got off in that case

              • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                OJ was acquitted of the charges by a jury of his peers and is considered innocent.

                The Zimmerman case had a lot more relevant eyewitness evidence as well as an audio recording of the shooting. None of this existed for the OJ trial.

            • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              And you don’t see any problem with that, even though he did kill an innocent and unarmed person?

              • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The defense established that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman. For that reason the jury acquitted Zimmerman.

                You can speculate and apply your beliefs to build whatever narrative you are trying to construct. But those are the facts of the case.

                • Lightor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes and a person throwing a paper ball at you is technically attacking you too, you wanna just shoot everyone? Jesus. Lethal force should not your only option when you’re going out looking for trouble. That’s why they don’t just give cops guns and say “shoot em if they don’t listen.”

                  • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s quite the straw man you’ve built there. But no, if we take a trip to reality, no one is shooting anyone because they threw paper balls. If they did it wouldn’t qualify as stand your ground, it would be murder.

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You realize that means he’s found innocent by a bunch of people who think like him. That doesn’t make his logic and people’s acceptance of it ok. Hell back in the day a jury of peers would find a slave guilty for running away.

              • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You do realize that the defense and prosecution both have a say in Jury selection.

                Jury’s also don’t establish law, they just rule on if the defendant violated it.

                Do you want to reach any further back in time to try and establish a false equivalency? We could debate trial by combat or something.

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That is quite the story there. Do you win all the internet arguments in your head when you make them up like that?

            Nowhere did I state it was ok to shoot anyone for knocking a drink. I pointed out where stand your ground laws apply and where they did not. Murder is still murder.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are many other common everyday items in society that can kill people if misused, yet they are not illegal in the post office.

      Are these other common everyday items purpose built for killing someone?

    • recapitated@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Downvotes aren’t necessarily disagreements. Sometimes they’re just about helping other people invest their time better.