FPC v Blanche (Bondi/Garland) - Firearms in post offices

[Euler]

Apparently not content with US v Ayala, on June 18, FPC filed this case in the Federal District Court of Northern Texas. (docket)

The main difference is that Ayala is about post offices. This case covers possession in all federal facilities, which is not limited to post offices, but it seeks an injunction on enforcement only in post offices.

Complaint said:

...
Plaintiffs sue to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which bars knowingly possessing a firearm in federal facilities, including United States Post Offices. Plaintiffs also sue to challenge the constitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), which bars firearm carry and storage on property under the control of the Postal Service.
...
18 U.S.C. § 930(a) bars the knowing possession of firearms in federal facilities. "Federal facility" is a building owned or leased by the Federal government, where Federal employees are regularly present to perform their official duties. ... The definition of federal facility therefore includes United States Post Offices. A violation of this subsection is punishable by a fine, a term of imprisonment less than a year, or both. ...

39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) similarly bars carrying and storing firearms on "postal property," except for official purposes. A violation of this subsection is punishable by a fine, a term of imprisonment less than 30 days, or both. ...
...
So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a "sensitive place," it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a "well-established and representative historical analogue[.]" ... The Court has identified only three such locations: founding-era "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses." ... The unifying principle allowing arms to be restricted in these locations at the Founding was comprehensive government-provided security. ... The federal government does not comprehensively secure post offices, so it cannot ban carry there.
...
Ayala held that § 930(a)'s application to post offices lacks any historical support. ... The court undertook a thorough analysis of various analogues, with a focus on the Founding era. The Ayala court specifically rejected the government's contention that all government buildings are sensitive places. ...
...
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

1. Issue a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the extent they bar the possession and carrying of firearms on United States Post Office property;

2. Issue a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) to the extent they bar the possession and carrying of firearms on United States Post Office property;

...

FWIW, I have observed absolutely no security, government-provided or otherwise, at any polling place where I have ever voted.

Edited April 11, 2026 at 03:31 AM by Euler
Garland → Bondi → Blanche

[Euler]

On August 21, the judge ordered parties to confer by September 4 and submit a joint status report for scheduling purposes by September 18.

[Euler]

On September 18 (the day the joint status report was due), the government asked for an extension. The judge granted an extension to September 25.

[Euler]

On September 25, the government met the deadline.

On September 27, the judge set the following schedule:

10/21: amendments to pleadings due, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due
11/26: defendants' response and cross-motion for summary judgment due
12/18: plaintiffs' response to cross-motion and reply to their own motion due
01/17: defendants' reply to cross-motion due

[davel501]

On 10/1/2024 at 12:00 AM, Euler said:

On September 25, the government met the deadline.

On September 27, the judge set the following schedule:

10/21: amendments to pleadings due, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment due
11/26: defendants' response and cross-motion for summary judgment due
12/18: plaintiffs' response to cross-motion and reply to their own motion due
01/17: defendants' reply to cross-motion due

 

11/26: defendants request for extension due. 

 

There. Fixed it for you. 😁

[Euler]

On October 1, 2024 at 12:16 AM CST, davel501 said:→

11/26: defendants request for extension due.

There. Fixed it for you.

Defendants met your deadline, but the judge had an unexpected answer.

On November 25, parties asked to extend the November 26 deadline for defendants' response and plaintiffs' reply to their own motion.

On November 26, the judge gave the defendants one more day (to November 27). No other dates are changed.

[davel501]

On 11/26/2024 at 8:21 PM, Euler said:

 

Defendants met your deadline, but the judge had an unexpected answer.

On November 25, parties asked to extend the November 26 deadline for defendants' response and plaintiffs' reply to their own motion.

On November 26, the judge gave the defendants one more day (to November 27). No other dates are changed.

 

 

[Euler]

On November 27, bizarrely the government was somehow able to make the deadline for a response, despite having only one extra day.

On December 18, FPC met its deadline for a reply.

On January 17, the government met its deadline for a reply on the cross-motion.

[davel501]

On 1/17/2025 at 9:25 PM, Euler said:

On November 27, bizarrely the government was somehow able to make the deadline for a response, despite having only one extra day.

On December 18, FPC met its deadline for a reply.

On January 17, the government met its deadline for a reply on the cross-motion.

 

Has anyone checked on the government to make sure they're ok? They aren't acting OK. 

[TomKoz]

On 1/17/2025 at 10:01 PM, davel501 said:

 

Has anyone checked on the government to make sure they're ok? They aren't acting OK. 

New AG coming soon !!

[Euler]

On September 30, the FPC won the case.

Opinion and order said:

...
... Thus, the Court DECLARES that:

1. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs' (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property. An ordinary United States Post Office is defined as a United States Post Office that is not located inside of (1) a Military Base or similarly restricted access area, or (2) a Federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a United States Post Office in which carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.

2. 8 U.S.C. § 930(a) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs' (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property. An ordinary United States Post Office is defined as a United States Post Office that is not located inside of (1) a Military Base or similarly restricted access area , or (2) a Federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a United States Post Office in which carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.

...
... Thus, the Court ENJOINS the Government from the following actions against Plaintiffs:

1. Interpreting or enforcing 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) to prohibit Plaintiffs' (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property. An ordinary United States Post Office is defined as a United States Post Office that is not located inside of (1) a Military Base or similarly restricted access area, or (2) a Federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a United States Post Office in which carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.

2. Interpreting or enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) to prohibit Plaintiffs' (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property. An ordinary United States Post Office is defined as a United States Post Office that is not located inside of (1) a Military Base or similarly restricted access area, or (2) a Federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a United States Post Office in which carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.

...

Before you rush to the Post Office with your EDC, this decision applies only to members of FPC and SAF and only in Texas (or maybe the 5th Circuit), not Illinois and not the 7th Circuit (yet).

[Tvandermyde]

SAF Email today

 

Dear Friend, 

 

YESTERDAY: Federal Court Rules Post Office Gun Ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL

For years, peaceable Americans have been forced to choose between mailing a package and exercising their Second Amendment rights. As of yesterday, that ends.

 

THE VICTORY: What Judge O'Connor Ruled

U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor issued a 17-page opinion striking down the federal ban on carrying firearms in post offices — declaring it violates the Second Amendment.

 

Three Devastating Blows to Government Overreach:

1. No Historical Precedent: Post offices existed before the founding. Despite 200 years of post office history, there were NO firearms restriction until 1972.
2. Not a "Sensitive Place:" The court rejected the government's claim that all federal buildings are by default gun-free zones. Post offices don't rise to the level of courthouses or legislative assemblies.
3. Government Can’t Hide From the Constitution: The government argued it could ignore the Second Amendment in post offices because it owns the buildings, so it was just banning guns there as a “landlord.” The court saw right through this "Hail Mary" and rejected it outright. 

Will you help us defend this historic win and expand it nationwide?

 

🔥  $1000  🔥  $500  🔥  $250  🔥  $100  🔥  $50

 

NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS: ALL SAF Members Protected by This Injunction, Not Only in Texas

• The plain text of Judge O’Connor’s Injunction applies its protection to “Plaintiffs (and their members),” without any additional language limiting its geographical scope. We read Judge O’Connor’s words on their face: as meaning that SAF members are protected - regardless of where they live. 
• In its briefing, the DOJ expressly argued for more limited injunctive relief, or the opportunity to argue for it at least, if the court planned to rule in our favor. The Court did rule in our favor, and elected to ignore the Government’s request to argue in favor of continuing to trample the rights of some Americans, based on where they lived. 
• This Opinion also lays out the roadmap for the proper application of Bruen to so-called “sensitive place” legislation, which seeks to disarm even permitted firearm carriers, and rebuffs the improper analysis adopted by some of the Circuit Courts.

SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb: "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."

 

FOR SAF MEMBERS: What You Need to Know

The plain text of Judge O’Connor’s order prevents the enforcement of the Post Office Ban against SAF Members, without limiting language as to geographic location. Not a member yet? Join the fight HERE. 

 

NOTE: The effectiveness and reach of injunctions, like this one, can change over time. SAF strongly recommends that before you undertake any conduct which could have legal implications that you speak to a local attorney to be advised of the most current state of the law. 

 

Additional Notes: Some limited Post Offices are still off-limits for firearms

• Post Offices on military bases or restricted areas
• Post Offices inside federal buildings with other government functions where firearms are otherwise prohibited
• Review the Final Judgment in its entirety here. 

[Molly B.]

Todd, your opinion,  do you think this covers SAF & FPC members here in Illinois also?

[Euler]

Stamboulieh expects the US to appeal. It'll probably try to stay the injunction pending the appeal, too, although that part may not succeed. The district court specifically considered and rejected a facial challenge, so the case would need higher courts to give an injunction broader authority, anyway.

[Euler]

On October 28 in district court, the US (Bondi) filed a motion to clarify the injunction, specifically the provisions to limit it to only members of plaintiff organizations on the date the case was filed. It argues that it is otherwise impossible to comply with the injunction. FPC and SAF have declined to provide their membership rosters, asserting that individual members can provide their membership status if questioned about their carry of firearms in post offices. Additionally, FPC and SAF do not believe the injunction is limited to people who were members on June 18, 2024.

[Upholder]

 

 

[Euler]

On November 18, FPC responded to the motion to "clarify" the injunction.

Response said:

...
The Government suggests, at a few points in its brief, that these limitations follow from the Supreme Court's recent decision restricting the issuance of "universal injunctions" in Trump v. CASA, Inc..... They do not. CASA left unchanged the Supreme Court's longstanding practice of recognizing an association's standing on behalf of its members to seek relief for its members. Rather, the Government's motion in this case is of a piece with its broader strategy, that has become apparent in the wake of CASA, to further restrict the remedial powers of the district court.
...
The Government argues that this Court's injunctive order extending relief to Plaintiffs' members violated Rule 65's specificity requirements and Article III's limitations on the authority of courts. This Court should be persuaded on neither count -- indeed, in both cases, the Government's arguments are at odds with binding precedent governing associational standing.
...
The Government argues that the extension of relief to Plaintiffs' members also makes compliance "factually impossible." ... Immediately after suggesting that compliance is a factual impossibility, the Government suggests one way it could comply: by declining to enforce "the challenged law and regulation nationwide." ... Indeed, if the Government had no other way to cease enforcing the Post Office Ban against FPC's and SAF's members, CASA suggests that the correct course would be to enjoin enforcement of the law entirely, since by the Government's own admission, no lesser relief could resolve the deprivation of Plaintiffs' members' constitutional rights.

... First, CASA limits what a court can order, not what the Government can do. ...

Second, even if CASA could be considered to have called into question the practice of awarding associational relief to associational plaintiffs' members, it did not address the issue directly. ...
...
Third, ... applying CASA's mode of analysis to this case demonstrates that the relief Plaintiffs seek is not contrary to CASA. ... There is thus every reason to think that the associational standing line of cases is consistent with the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and has not been undermined at all by CASA.

Finally, this case does not implicate CASA even in effect because it would be simple for the Government to implement the Court's order, as written, without extending relief universally. It could simply decline to enforce the law against those persons who identify themselves as a member of FPC or SAF and are therefore entitled to "come in under the decree, and take the benefit of it." ...

To this, the Government ... complains that the members' identities are "unknown and unknowable" and that therefore the Government risks contempt because its compliance would be "wholly contingent on the acts of third parties who have no legal obligation to disclose their membership affiliation." ... To the extent that the Government's concern here is that it might be held in contempt for enforcing the Post Office Ban against an individual who is a member of FPC or SAF but refuses to disclose that information to the Government, Plaintiffs agree that the Government should not be held in contempt for enforcing the law against an individual who did not disclose membership. Plaintiffs therefore would not oppose altering the language of the order to make clear that it is limited to members who identify themselves as such to the Government, though Plaintiffs think that alteration is unnecessary under a fair reading of the order as it currently stands.

[T]he Government ... claims that even where an individual properly identifies himself, it is in an impossible predicament because "the Court's injunction could be construed to prohibit investigatory actions necessary to verify whether a person is a member of either organization" and that "the federal government has no way of verifying the accuracy" of an individual's claim to be a member of one of the associations. ... Neither objection makes the injunction unworkable. As for the claim that merely asking an individual who is carrying a firearm in a post office whether they are a member of an association, that is not something the Government is enjoined from doing under the plain language of the order ....

Furthermore, the Government's own position undercuts the force of this objection, because it accepts that it could abide by an injunction with respect to members identified by Plaintiffs in this litigation, such as the Individual Plaintiffs. ... But the injunction does not require the Individual Plaintiffs to wear name tags every time they carry in a post office, so the Government will have to take investigatory steps (e.g., asking about their identity) to implement even the reach of the injunction that the Government does not quarrel with. In other words, if the Government believes that merely asking whether an individual is covered by the injunction is somehow "enforcing" the Post Office Ban, there is no amount of information about Plaintiffs or their members that Plaintiffs could give the Government that would render compliance possible.

As to the objection that the Government has no way of verifying the accuracy of an individual's claim to membership, that is not an impediment to implementing the injunction. Individuals are heavily incentivized to tell the truth to the government; a material falsehood is a felony. ... And the Government already relies on people to tell the truth with respect to other firearms restrictions with potentially much more at stake. ...

The Government separately argues that relief should "be limited to individuals who were members of one of the organizational Plaintiffs at the time this suit was filed" ...
...
The Government's approach is entirely inconsistent with the principles of representative suits such as associational cases or class actions, one of the chief benefits of which is that the contours of an organization's membership (or a class, in a class action) can grow or change over time to ensure a that the beneficiaries of a suit are those who are presently being harmed. ...
...
It is no surprise, in the face of this uniformity of views, that the Government has not cited a single case that adopts its member-with-standing-at-the-time-of-filing limitation on associational relief. ...
...

TL;DR: FPC discounts all the reasons which the government states why the injunction must be "clarified," including the necessity of being an FPC or SAF member as of the filing date of this complaint, except that it concedes that FPC and SAF members may be required to identify themselves as such if stopped while armed in a post office.

[Euler]

On November 24, the government asked to extend the deadline to reply.

On November 26, the court extended the deadline to reply to December 12.

[Euler]

On September 30, 2025 at 06:10 PM CST, Euler said:→

On September 30, the FPC won the case.
...

On December 1, the government notified the district court that it is appealing the injunction granted on September 30 to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I don't have a docket for the appeal yet.

[Euler]

On December 9, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals assigned docket 25-11328.

On January 5 in appellate court, the US (Bondi) filed a brief (opposed by plaintiffs) asking the court to stay its own appeal pending the current US Supreme Court cases of Wolford (Hawaii vampire carry rule) and Hemani (drug user prohibition). The US argues that those cases could affect how Bruen would be applied to post offices.

[Euler]

On January 14, FPC filed its opposition to the motion to stay.

On January 21, the court denied the government's motion to stay the case.

[Euler]

On March 17 in district court, the judge "clarified" that the injunction (issued September 30, 2025) applies to all present and future members of FPC and SAF.

[Euler]

On April 8 in appellate court, the court recaptioned the case FPC v Blanche.

[Euler]

On April 23 in appellate court, the court ordered the government to file its appeal brief by June 2.

[Euler]

On May 11 in appellate court, the government asked for an extension to file its brief. The court granted an extension to July 2.

[Euler]

On March 17, 2026 at 11:27 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On March 17 in district court, the judge "clarified" that the injunction (issued September 30, 2025) applies to all present and future members of FPC and SAF.

On May 15 in district court, the US filed its notice of intent to appeal the district court's "clarification."

On May 20 in appellate court, the 5th Circuit incorporated the new appeal into the existing appeal. (Presumably the July 2 brief will cover the combined appeals.)