I don't get it. I've never heard of the DOJ issuing a "ruling" like a judge would do. Didn't know they could just declare a law unconstitutional. The article sounds like it came from a court, but it's just the DOJ office of legal counsel. No link to the actual memo either. What force or effect does it actually have, other than them saying they won't prosecute this specific thing? But if they changed their mind later (maybe a future admin), this opinion would not be binding since it didn't come from a court..
DOJ Declares Century-Old Ban on Mailing Handguns Unconstitutional
by Clive Cummings January 16, 2026 in News, Original
Handgun
The Department of Justice has ruled that a longstanding federal prohibition on sending concealable firearms through the U.S. Postal Service violates the Second Amendment and cannot be enforced. This decision targets a 1927 law that barred mailing items like pistols and revolvers, which the DOJ now deems unenforceable for law-abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
For nearly a century, Section 1715 of Title 18 in the U.S. Code has restricted the shipment of handguns via USPS, forcing gun owners to rely on private carriers or face legal hurdles. The Postal Service defined these as any firearms capable of being hidden on a person, including short-barreled shotguns and rifles. Private companies like UPS and FedEx have their own policies, often prohibiting such shipments altogether, leaving many Americans with limited options for transporting firearms legally.
In a 15-page memorandum released on January 15, 2026, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the ban infringes on constitutional protections. Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote that the law “makes it difficult to travel with arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting.”
The opinion further states: “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.”
This shift comes amid ongoing legal challenges, including a lawsuit filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation in July 2025. GOA hailed the opinion as a direct response to their case, Shreve v. U.S. Postal Service, where they argued the ban lacked historical basis and suppressed Second Amendment rights.
“When the government enforces a prohibition on guns and gun owners with no historical foundation and no constitutional support—like the USPS ban on mailing handguns—it must be struck down,” said GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt in a statement.
While the ban on undetectable firearms remains intact, the DOJ clarified that restrictions on mailing ammunition or gunpowder can stand due to safety concerns for postal workers and facilities. This distinction acknowledges practical risks without undermining core rights. Gun rights advocates see this as a step toward dismantling outdated regulations that have long burdened responsible owners.
Skeptics might view the original 1927 law as part of a broader pattern of incremental government encroachments designed to erode personal freedoms under the guise of public safety. Over the decades, such measures have quietly accumulated, often without scrutiny, raising questions about whether they were ever truly about mail security or more about controlling access to tools of self-reliance.
This ruling could reshape how Americans handle firearm transfers, repairs, and sales across state lines, potentially easing burdens for hunters, collectors, and those in rural areas far from licensed dealers. As the Postal Service updates its rules, gun owners should monitor for compliance changes to avoid any lingering pitfalls.
Overall, the decision marks a restoration of rights that many believe were wrongly curtailed for too long. With the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision as a backdrop, it signals that historical traditions, not modern whims, should guide firearm policies. For those committed to preserving individual liberties, this is a reminder that vigilance pays off.
Back in my 20's I actually obtained a Federal Firearms License and had firearms delivered to my front door.
In California!
Fun times when I was in my twenties. Lots of sports too.
That's a good question. I think if you purchase it from a store, as long as they are an FFL and can complete the required ATF Form 4473 they should be allowed to mail it. However - I don't think any store would use the USPS - they would send it by Fedex or UPS. I don't think this changes much for buying firearms.
It will change things where someone wants to mail parts (or maybe a complete gun) to someone else, or to a repair shop. Fedex or UPS will allow some shipments of guns from manufacturers or businesses but they really frown on regular people doing that. USPS will now have no choice. This of course depends on the DOJ's opinion being codified or affirmed by SCOTUS.
One of my guns broke about a decade ago, and I just took it back to Academy and they took care of shipping it out for repair, and called me when it was back. Honestly I think this is how most gun owners operate, but I can see this helping people in out-of-the-way rural areas where they might not have the big gun/sports stores.
Side story on that. I went to Academy once to get a little 22 rifle on sale. After the paperwork was done (10 minutes for me thanks to my LTC) they had to take the rifle up front for me to pay for it. They said their manager makes them do that for safety. I laughed and said first - there is no ammo in the weapon, and besides I'm carrying and wouldn't need to use a rifle in a box unloaded to do anything. He said yeah - almost everyone is. Stupid managers.
Devil's advocate on the Academy story: the employee carrying the gun up to the registers may also have been required to do that as a loss prevention measure. I did similar things selling alcohol and books (but not the same time, lol). Keeping the expensive item in employee view at all times means it doesn't "grow legs" and walk out the store. In the case of the firearm, it would be a major liability for Academy.
Less about stupid managers (although there are plenty) and more about shoplifters and untrustworthy individuals ruining it for everyone else.
Yeah I get that, but the rifle was $79, and they had all of my information since I had just filled out the gun paperwork. I've bought stuff way more expensive than that without them carrying it to the front. I don't think that was the reason.
The only thing I could figure (aside from stupid managers) is they took the gun to the customer service counter until the cashier rang it up by a tag the sporting goods person gave them. Maybe the cashiers aren't allowed to handle the weapon - age or training? I don't know why they don't just ring them up in sporting goods. They could just as easily walk me to a door once done.
I live in rural Mississippi. Every time I order a pistol from an online vender, I have to have it shipped to a local pawn shop that has a license to pick it up for an up fee of 30 dollars. I was just wondering since I want to order another 45.
The DOJ declared it, but what does that do? The USPS or the Supreme Court didn't declare it. So I'm not sure it is going to change.
I don't get it. I've never heard of the DOJ issuing a "ruling" like a judge would do. Didn't know they could just declare a law unconstitutional. The article sounds like it came from a court, but it's just the DOJ office of legal counsel. No link to the actual memo either. What force or effect does it actually have, other than them saying they won't prosecute this specific thing? But if they changed their mind later (maybe a future admin), this opinion would not be binding since it didn't come from a court..
DOJ Declares Century-Old Ban on Mailing Handguns Unconstitutional by Clive Cummings January 16, 2026 in News, Original Handgun
The Department of Justice has ruled that a longstanding federal prohibition on sending concealable firearms through the U.S. Postal Service violates the Second Amendment and cannot be enforced. This decision targets a 1927 law that barred mailing items like pistols and revolvers, which the DOJ now deems unenforceable for law-abiding citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
For nearly a century, Section 1715 of Title 18 in the U.S. Code has restricted the shipment of handguns via USPS, forcing gun owners to rely on private carriers or face legal hurdles. The Postal Service defined these as any firearms capable of being hidden on a person, including short-barreled shotguns and rifles. Private companies like UPS and FedEx have their own policies, often prohibiting such shipments altogether, leaving many Americans with limited options for transporting firearms legally.
In a 15-page memorandum released on January 15, 2026, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the ban infringes on constitutional protections. Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote that the law “makes it difficult to travel with arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting.”
The opinion further states: “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.”
This shift comes amid ongoing legal challenges, including a lawsuit filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation in July 2025. GOA hailed the opinion as a direct response to their case, Shreve v. U.S. Postal Service, where they argued the ban lacked historical basis and suppressed Second Amendment rights.
“When the government enforces a prohibition on guns and gun owners with no historical foundation and no constitutional support—like the USPS ban on mailing handguns—it must be struck down,” said GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt in a statement.
While the ban on undetectable firearms remains intact, the DOJ clarified that restrictions on mailing ammunition or gunpowder can stand due to safety concerns for postal workers and facilities. This distinction acknowledges practical risks without undermining core rights. Gun rights advocates see this as a step toward dismantling outdated regulations that have long burdened responsible owners.
Skeptics might view the original 1927 law as part of a broader pattern of incremental government encroachments designed to erode personal freedoms under the guise of public safety. Over the decades, such measures have quietly accumulated, often without scrutiny, raising questions about whether they were ever truly about mail security or more about controlling access to tools of self-reliance.
This ruling could reshape how Americans handle firearm transfers, repairs, and sales across state lines, potentially easing burdens for hunters, collectors, and those in rural areas far from licensed dealers. As the Postal Service updates its rules, gun owners should monitor for compliance changes to avoid any lingering pitfalls.
Overall, the decision marks a restoration of rights that many believe were wrongly curtailed for too long. With the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision as a backdrop, it signals that historical traditions, not modern whims, should guide firearm policies. For those committed to preserving individual liberties, this is a reminder that vigilance pays off.
Very good news.
The USPS will gladly begin shipping guns because they need the revenue. It won't be much but it is a start in getting their budget under control.
Until they admit that ALL "gun" laws are unconstitutional, it will not matter. Cherry picking is still infringement.
Our rights were eroded incrementally, we MIGHT have to take them back the same way.
I'd much prefer that SCOTUS develop the spine to say "The text says what the text says, and what it says is "... shall not be infringed."
Back in my 20's I actually obtained a Federal Firearms License and had firearms delivered to my front door. In California! Fun times when I was in my twenties. Lots of sports too.
Does this mean we can purchase a firearm from off the internet and have it shipped directly to us instead of going through a gun dealer?
Why wouldn't it?
I usually have to have it shipped to a local with a license to pick it up. Would be nice if I could just direct buy after paperwork.
That's a good question. I think if you purchase it from a store, as long as they are an FFL and can complete the required ATF Form 4473 they should be allowed to mail it. However - I don't think any store would use the USPS - they would send it by Fedex or UPS. I don't think this changes much for buying firearms.
It will change things where someone wants to mail parts (or maybe a complete gun) to someone else, or to a repair shop. Fedex or UPS will allow some shipments of guns from manufacturers or businesses but they really frown on regular people doing that. USPS will now have no choice. This of course depends on the DOJ's opinion being codified or affirmed by SCOTUS.
One of my guns broke about a decade ago, and I just took it back to Academy and they took care of shipping it out for repair, and called me when it was back. Honestly I think this is how most gun owners operate, but I can see this helping people in out-of-the-way rural areas where they might not have the big gun/sports stores.
Side story on that. I went to Academy once to get a little 22 rifle on sale. After the paperwork was done (10 minutes for me thanks to my LTC) they had to take the rifle up front for me to pay for it. They said their manager makes them do that for safety. I laughed and said first - there is no ammo in the weapon, and besides I'm carrying and wouldn't need to use a rifle in a box unloaded to do anything. He said yeah - almost everyone is. Stupid managers.
Devil's advocate on the Academy story: the employee carrying the gun up to the registers may also have been required to do that as a loss prevention measure. I did similar things selling alcohol and books (but not the same time, lol). Keeping the expensive item in employee view at all times means it doesn't "grow legs" and walk out the store. In the case of the firearm, it would be a major liability for Academy.
Less about stupid managers (although there are plenty) and more about shoplifters and untrustworthy individuals ruining it for everyone else.
Yeah I get that, but the rifle was $79, and they had all of my information since I had just filled out the gun paperwork. I've bought stuff way more expensive than that without them carrying it to the front. I don't think that was the reason.
The only thing I could figure (aside from stupid managers) is they took the gun to the customer service counter until the cashier rang it up by a tag the sporting goods person gave them. Maybe the cashiers aren't allowed to handle the weapon - age or training? I don't know why they don't just ring them up in sporting goods. They could just as easily walk me to a door once done.
I live in rural Mississippi. Every time I order a pistol from an online vender, I have to have it shipped to a local pawn shop that has a license to pick it up for an up fee of 30 dollars. I was just wondering since I want to order another 45.
Wow. That sucks.
Awesome!!!
I dont trust USPS with a bday card. No way in hell I'd trust them with a firearm.
LOL! Good point.
I hope this administration is ready to go to war in Virginia when it comes to gun laws. We are going to need all the help we can get.
Well , it just takes one patriot, with the means, to mail one to themselves and find out.