Americans may soon be able to ship handguns through the mail.

That’s the potential practical outcome of the Department of Justice (DOJ) changing its position on the constitutionality of the federal ban against civilians shipping pistols through the United States Postal Service (USPS). On Thursday, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel released a review of the shipping ban and concluded it violates the Second Amendment. It said the executive branch should no longer enforce the law, and USPS should update its rules to allow civilians to ship certain kinds of guns directly through the mail.

“Section 1715 of title 18, U.S. Code, is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected firearms, including handguns, because it serves an illegitimate purpose and is inconsistent with the Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation,” Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote in the new opinion. “The Department of Justice may not, consistent with the Constitution, enforce section 1715 with respect to constitutionally protected firearms. The Postal Service should modify its regulations to conform with this opinion.”

The new position could reshape how American civilians buy, sell, loan, and transport handguns or other “concealable” firearms. If implemented, it would make all of those tasks easier for the average person. The move is also likely to buy additional goodwill from gun-rights activists, who’ve been strong supporters of President Donald Trump but who’ve also clashed with his administration over its continued defense of nearly all federal gun laws.

Currently, nearly anyone who doesn’t have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) is prohibited under the law from shipping a “concealable” firearm through the mail. Instead, they have to rely on FFLs to serve as a sort of paid middleman in order to send and receive handguns, short-barrel shotguns, or short-barrel rifles. That includes cases where the person purchased a gun from a dealer outside of their local area.

Gun Owners of America is currently challenging the federal prohibition in the Third Circuit in a case called Shreve v. USPS. The gun-rights group cheered the DOJ’s reversal.

“This opinion is a direct rebuke to decades of federal overreach that has unlawfully restricted Americans’ ability to acquire, maintain, and transport their firearms,” Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, said in a statement. “For too long, law-abiding gun owners have been forced to navigate expensive, burdensome workarounds involving federal firearms licensees, just to ship a handgun—even for perfectly lawful purposes. The DOJ now recognizes what we’ve always known: the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and that includes the rights to acquire and transport them.”

The DOJ’s reasoning for changing its opinion on the law centered around the idea that Section 1715, which was enacted back in 1927, imposes a substantial burden on Americans’ gun rights. It said that burden wasn’t justifiable under the history-and-tradition test devised by the Supreme Court in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“We conclude that the restriction imposed by section 1715 violates the Second Amendment,” Gaiser wrote. “Section 1715 makes it difficult to travel with arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. The statute also imposes significant barriers to shipping constitutionally protected firearms as articles of commerce, which interferes with citizens’ incidental rights to acquire and maintain arms. Indeed, the statute ultimately aims to suppress traffic in constitutionally protected articles thus rendering the law per se unconstitutional as to those articles, and we are aware of no historical analogues that would satisfy the government’s burden of showing that this unprecedented restriction ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”

Gaiser pointed to several hypothetical examples that he said illustrate the difficulties regular Americans have in transporting firearms because of the ban. He said somebody taking a bus between Washington, DC, and Philadelphia wouldn’t be able to bring their gun with them due to most bus companies’ policies. He argued somebody flying from California to Vermont with a gun who got diverted to New York City could be arrested for illegal possession if they took possession of their checked luggage. He also said someone driving from Wisconsin to Michigan who stops in Chicago for two days with their gun would also likely face arrest since federal protections only apply to continuous trips.

“In these cases (and many others like them), a person has no ability to travel with a firearm, leaving shipment of the handgun to a destination as the only viable method of transportation,” Gaiser wrote. “But the person cannot use a common or contract carrier to ship himself the handgun because, currently, the large common carriers that deliver parcels refuse to ship firearms for private citizens. And section 1715 forbids mailing the handgun. The Postal Service’s ban on mailing handguns thus stifles the legitimate transportation and carriage of handguns for self-defense or any other lawful purpose.”

He further noted that “an individual cannot mail himself a handgun for core constitutionally protected activity, such as self-defense, target shooting, or hunting,” even though “traveling with a firearm can be difficult, if not impossible, rendering the mail the most effective way to transport an individual’s firearm to his destination.”

Gaiser also looked at the legislative record from when the pistol mail ban was passed and concluded Congress’s purpose was primarily to restrict access to pistols or other concealable firearms. But he said the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved significantly since that time, and Congress’s motive is no longer compatible with what the Court believes is allowed. He noted that “Heller and its progeny have thoroughly repudiated the claim that the Second Amendment does not protect handguns.”

“Such a purpose—to frustrate protected arms’ transportability, thereby making it more difficult for citizens to obtain such weapons—constitutes a per se infringement upon the Second Amendment,” he wrote.

However, the DOJ stopped short of requiring USPS to ship all firearms under all circumstances.

“We do not conclude that the Department of Justice may never enforce section 1715,” Gaiser wrote. “We conclude only that section 1715 is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected arms. Section 1715, however, extends beyond such constitutionally protected arms to any firearms capable of being concealed upon the person. Our conclusion thus does not extend to arms that lack constitutional protection, such as undetectable firearms, or concealable gadget-type guns designed primarily for assassination, like pen guns. The Postal Service and the Department of Justice may therefore continue to enforce the shipping restrictions found in section 1715 against firearms that lack constitutional protection.”

It also said the Second Amendment doesn’t create “a positive entitlement to have the government deliver firearms on behalf of customers.” Similarly, it found there was sufficient historical precedent for the USPS to refuse to ship ammunition over safety concerns.

“We also do not conclude that the Postal Service is required to carry ammunition or gunpowder. Even though ammunition is constitutionally protected, mailing restriction on all explosives serves legitimate postal needs to prevent injury to postal employees and property. Such facially neutral restrictions do not discriminate against constitutionally protected items.”

Ultimately, the DOJ concluded USPS will have to change its rules to allow regular Americans to ship and receive handguns.

“Handguns fall within the core of the ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment. And unloaded firearms are not inherently dangerous in the same sense as explosives or poisons, which is why the Postal Service already accepts rifles and shotguns for mailing, together with handguns from certain qualified shippers,” Gaiswer wrote. “Consequently, so long as Congress chooses to run a parcel service, the Second Amendment precludes it from refusing to ship constitutionally protected firearms to and from law-abiding citizens, even if they are not licensed manufacturers or dealers.”

USPS did not respond to a request for comment on the new DOJ opinion.

Originally published by Stephen Gutowski for The Reload. Read the full story ›