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.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months 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
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 months 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
          3
          ·
          8 months 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
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months 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.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        8 months 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.

    • Lightor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months 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
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months 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.