U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut, Vernon D. Oliver, issued an order upholding a federal ban on firearms in post offices on Wednesday, March 25, creating a split at the district court level.
The challenge was brought by Connecticut resident and member of a politically conservative legal advocacy group, We the Patriots, David Nastri, who sued U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Postmaster General David Steiner, challenging a 1972 regulation that banned firearms in all post offices.
Judge Oliver found a blanket ban on firearms in post offices to be constitutional because, as government buildings, post offices are considered “sensitive locations” and, when looking at the total number of visitors post offices across the country get every day, the average post office in the United States should receive around 200 visitors a day, which means that they are “quintessentially crowded locations,” therefore subject to Second Amendment regulations.
“The Court holds that the challenged regulation here, the Federal Facility Ban, as applied to Post Offices, is in line with history and tradition. Specifically, the Second Circuit in [Antonyuk v. James] concluded that our Nation has a ‘well-established and representative tradition of regulating firearms in public forums and quintessentially crowded places, enduring from medieval England to Reconstruction America and beyond,’” the order states.
Cameron Atkinson, the attorney representing Nastri in this case, said he plans to challenge this decision.
“We’re not the least bit surprised. Rogue lower courts continue to torch the Constitution, trading Bruen and Heller for cheap ‘guns are scary’ hysteria,” he wrote in a text message.
Bruen and Heller, or N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), are landmark Supreme Court cases about Second Amendment Jurisprudence. In the Bruen decision, a 6-3 majority struck down a requirement under New York law that required a person seeking a concealed carry permit to show “proper cause,” or a special need for self-defense, to get a concealed carry permit. The Heller decision affirmed an individual’s right to bear arms, even if they are not a part of a local militia, and overturned D.C.’s blanket ban on handguns.
“They’re not even pretending to follow the law anymore,” Atkinson’s text continued. “We look forward to crushing this decision on appeal.”
This Connecticut decision creates a split between the District of Connecticut and the Districts of Northern Texas and Middle Florida, which ruled against the ban. The Texas case is already headed to the Fifth Circuit.
Atkinson previously represented Nastri in a lawsuit that sought to overturn Connecticut’s ban on handguns in state parks. This challenge was initially struck down by a state judge and, in September, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Victor Bolden dismissed their appeal.
As for Oliver, Atkinson told Inside Investigator over a phone call, “I look forward to seeing him get reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
