Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has notched another landmark courtroom victory, this time against the long-standing federal prohibition on carrying firearms in U.S. Post Offices.
In a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge’s summary judgment sided with SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and two private citizens.
The decision grants both declaratory and injunctive relief, striking down the ban as unconstitutional and preventing its enforcement against SAF members and other plaintiffs.
At issue were 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) — the federal statutes and regulations barring firearms in federal facilities and on postal property. The court found both inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
In plain terms: there is no historical analogue that allows the government to strip Americans of their right to bear arms simply for visiting the local post office.
SEE ALSO: Vortex Venom Enclosed Micro Red Dot Review
“The Court determines that both 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) are inconsistent with the principles that underpin this Nation’s regulatory tradition,” the opinion stated. “Thus, they are unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms inside an ordinary post office or on post office property.”
“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “There is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and exercising their rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.”
SEE ALSO: Jacob Grey Drops the Nox 9
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb echoed that point: “There is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.”
The case, FPC v. Bondi, was filed in June 2024 and represents a key test under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, which requires modern gun restrictions to be firmly rooted in historical tradition.
With this victory, SAF and its partners have not only freed their members from an unconstitutional ban, but also set a precedent likely to ripple through future challenges of so-called “sensitive places” restrictions.
For now, the message from the Northern District of Texas is clear: the government cannot treat your local post office like a Constitution-free zone.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
The problem that I see right now is in this phrase: “preventing its enforcement against SAF members and other plaintiffs” – – – which means that this ruling doesn’t necessarily apply to anyone else. It’s not a national standard – yet. There’s still work to be done.
Great news but the problem was never the law 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) because it excludes ” (3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes”. The problem was the regulation 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) Which states “Weapons and explosives. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.” Unelected bureaucrats promulgating regulations which take on the force of law. Drain the swamp!!! Good work SAF.
Does this include employees on active duty?
Next should be military bases. As a retired military member I cannot go aboard any military base with a gun in my car. This is a restriction of my second amendment rights. The military uses the same title code the post office used except they define a base as a facility, which it is not. Buildings on a base are facilities, but the base is not. So, i should be able to have a gun in my car. I just won’t be able to Carry it in the exchange or Commissary.
va is the same way and parking is included in the ban!
Just another one of the asinine government regulation that forced people to take their business elsewhere, like UPS or FedEx. Is it any wonder why people use email whenever possible? Just another good reason the USPS should be privatized. That’s why I deep conceal and don’t open carry. You’ll never know I’m armed, and I intend to keep it that way. Besides, as the ‘o saying goes; “better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6”.
It’s about time! All states should pass common sense laws like the, banning the ban of guns in the post office and other federal buildings! Of all places, federal buildings and land should be places where the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is respected and followed.
Concealed is concealed.
I noticed the ban stickers were removed from my local PO. The forest preserves and some Churches also seem to no longer be displaying those confounded stickers, not sure what to make of this trend. What are the legal implications of carrying on those properties that do NOT properly display the sticker?
Back in 1983 there was a fatal shooting in the Daley Center courthouse in Chicago where a divorce lawyer and judge were killed by a former Chicago PO, Hutchie Moore. Moore was a in a wheelchair because some years before his son shot him for one reason or another. Many sweeping laws were enacted because of the killing of the popular Judge Gentile and attorney James Piszczo. Out right handgun bans in several suburbs in Illinois, that would last several decades. Piszczo was a resident of Oak Park, where I grew up and a suburb that enacted a handgun ban.
I also believe that nationally, metal detectors and the PO bans may have has some connected to the Court House shooting in 1983. I have a few family members that worked with Moore on the CPD and they tell me he was NOT a good officer. He was a slum lord who would work on his buildings while he was on the clock. He was about to lose much of his property holdings just before he killed the 2 men he blamed for impending downturn of wealth.
Hopefully the PO bans and others will fall nation wide very soon.
sounds like this limited and not country wide……