The United States Postal Service is considering a fundamental shift in how firearms move across state lines, proposing a rule that would lift a nearly century-old ban on the mailing of handguns. The move follows a legal determination by the Department of Justice that the existing restrictions are an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.
The proposal, titled “Revised Mailing Standards for Firearms,” seeks to align the shipment of handguns and revolvers with the rules already governing shotguns and long-barreled rifles. If adopted, it would allow law-abiding citizens to ship unloaded and securely packaged handguns through the mail—a practice that has been largely prohibited for decades unless the sender is a licensed dealer.
The shift has ignited a sharp legal battle between the executive branch and a coalition of nearly two dozen Democratic attorneys general. These officials argue that the administration is attempting to unilaterally bypass a federal statute, creating what they describe as a dangerous loophole for gun trafficking.
A Prohibition-Era Law in the Modern Court
The conflict centers on a law passed in 1927, during the height of the Prohibition era, which banned the Postal Service from transporting “concealable firearms.” For nearly 100 years, this statute served as a primary barrier to the private shipment of handguns, ensuring that such weapons were handled primarily by licensed dealers who are subject to federal oversight and record-keeping requirements.
However, the legal landscape shifted in January when the Justice Department issued a formal opinion asserting that the 1927 law is no longer constitutionally viable. The DOJ concluded that the statute violates the Second Amendment by burdening the rights of citizens to ship and receive arms that are in “common use for lawful purposes.”
This interpretation reflects a broader judicial trend toward expanding the scope of the Second Amendment, moving away from the collective right of a militia toward an individual right to possess and transport firearms. By urging the USPS to change its regulations, the DOJ effectively signaled that the federal government can no longer justify the ban on the grounds of public safety alone if it impedes a constitutional right.
The Legal Pushback: ‘Unlawful’ and ‘Irresponsible’
The proposal has met fierce resistance from a group of attorneys general led by Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. Representing 20 states with Democratic governors, one with a Republican governor (Vermont), and the District of Columbia, the group argues that the Justice Department cannot simply declare a federal law unconstitutional and act as if it no longer exists.
In a joint statement, the attorneys general contended that the administration cannot “unilaterally invalidate a federal statute and sanction conduct that Congress has prohibited.” Beyond the constitutional argument, the officials raised practical concerns regarding law enforcement. They argued that allowing private handgun shipments would make it significantly more expensive and difficult for local police to track the movement of weapons and solve gun-related crimes.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta was particularly blunt, labeling the proposal an “irresponsible loophole.” Bonta warned that the rule change could allow prohibited individuals—including felons or those with restraining orders—to obtain handguns without the mandatory background checks required by state and federal laws.
Contrasting Perspectives on Gun Ownership
While critics see a trafficking pipeline, gun-rights advocates view the proposal as a long-overdue correction of an arbitrary rule. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has hailed the move as a victory for the “law-abiding gun owner.”
John Commerford, executive director of the Institute for Legislative Action at the NRA, noted that current regulations create unnecessary hurdles for citizens. Under current rules, a gun owner cannot mail a handgun to themselves for a hunting trip, a competition, or even when relocating to a new home. Commerford argued that applying the same “common-sense safety conditions” used for rifles to handguns is a logical extension of firearm rights.
Conversely, Everytown for Gun Safety, a leading gun-control advocacy group, has challenged the factual basis of the DOJ’s opinion. President John Feinblatt argued that the Justice Department’s legal speculation is flawed and that the USPS proposal includes changes to the law that were not even mentioned in the original DOJ opinion. Feinblatt suggested the move reflects a political priority over public safety, stating, “Clearly a ballot is the only thing this White House thinks is too dangerous to send through the mail.”
How USPS Rules Differ from Private Carriers
the USPS proposal does not mandate changes for private shipping companies. FedEx, UPS, and Amazon maintain their own independent policies regarding the shipment of firearms, which are often more restrictive than the proposed USPS standards.
| Carrier | Handgun Shipping Policy | Primary Restriction |
|---|---|---|
| USPS (Proposed) | Allowed (Unloaded/Secure) | Must follow revised safety standards |
| FedEx/UPS | Restricted | Often limited to licensed dealers (FFL) |
| Amazon | Prohibited | No listing or sale of firearms allowed |
The Path Toward Litigation
The public comment period for the “Revised Mailing Standards for Firearms” closed on May 4. David Walton, a spokesperson for the Postal Service, confirmed that the agency is currently reviewing the submissions. However, given the intensity of the opposition from state attorneys general, a final rule adoption is likely to trigger immediate litigation.
The current climate of “lawfare” between state AGs and federal agencies provides a blueprint for this conflict. In March, a similar coalition of 25 attorneys general and various cities sued the administration over EPA proposals regarding climate change findings. Legal experts expect a similar filing in the case of the USPS rule, potentially landing the matter in a federal appellate court to determine if a regulatory agency can bypass a statute based on a DOJ opinion.
Disclaimer: This article provides information on proposed regulatory changes and legal disputes. We see not intended as legal advice. For specific guidance on firearm shipping laws, consult the official USPS Postal Explorer or a licensed legal professional.
The next confirmed step in this process is the Postal Service’s internal review of public comments. Once that review is complete, the USPS will either issue a final rule, a modified proposal, or withdraw the request. Any final rule issuance will likely be the catalyst for the lawsuits currently being prepared by the coalition of state attorneys general.
What do you think about the balance between Second Amendment rights and postal security? Share your thoughts in the comments below or share this story on social media to join the conversation.
