DOJ: Ban on Mailing Concealable Firearms Unconstitutional, Can’t Be Enforced

[THE KING]

 

 

[THE KING]

A step in the right direction 

[mauserme]

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5691733-doj-opinion-handguns-usps/

DOJ: Ban on mailing concealable firearms unconstitutional, can’t be enforced

by Sophie Brams

 

A nearly 100-year-old federal ban on mailing handguns through the U.S. Postal Service is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced, according to an opinion released Thursday by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

 

The 15-page opinion concluded that a 1927 law, which made it illegal to use the Postal Service to mail concealable firearms, such as pistols and revolvers, infringes on the Second Amendment.

 

“Section 1715 makes it difficult to travel with arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting,” wrote T. Elliot Gaiser, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

 

“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,” the opinion continued.

 

Postal Service policy mandates that nonmailable firearms found in the mail stream “must be immediately reported to the United States Postal Inspection Service,” and investigations are then referred to the relevant U.S. attorney’s office for prosecution.

 

The agency categorizes “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on a person,” including short-barreled shotguns and rifles, as handguns. It also notes that there are no restrictions on mailing rifles and shotguns between licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers.

 

Major private carriers, including UPS and FedEx, also restrict the shipping of firearms to only licensed dealers, which the opinion argued effectively creates a “complete ban” for unlicensed people.

 

The opinion acknowledged some limitations, finding that the law was only unconstitutional related to handguns but still applied to undetectable firearms, such as pen guns.

 

It also found that the Postal Service should not be required to carry ammunition or gunpowder, despite those being constitutionally protected, because the existing restriction on explosives “serves legitimate postal needs to prevent injury to postal employees and property.”

...

 

 

 

 

 

[ealcala31]

The ammunition restriction is still ridiculous. 

[bmyers]

So this means I can mail a handgun to anyone without going through a FFL as long as that person is legal to have the gun? I did not say sell, but to just transfer a gun for a relative's use. If a gun is to be sold, I would assume that an FFL would have to be involved somewhere along the way if the person is out of State.

[soundguy]

On 1/16/2026 at 5:42 AM, bmyers said:

So this means I can mail a handgun to anyone without going through a FFL as long as that person is legal to have the gun? I did not say sell, but to just transfer a gun for a relative's use. If a gun is to be sold, I would assume that an FFL would have to be involved somewhere along the way if the person is out of State.

 

That's opening an intriguing can of worms.

 

I'm guessing no... it's gonna let us ship to a gunsmith/mfg or other FFL.

Maybe to ourselves at a Post Office we are traveling to.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[Black Flag]

On 1/16/2026 at 6:25 AM, soundguy said:

 

That's opening an intriguing 

an intriguing restoration of rights.

[Chinto]

Does this mean that 18 U.S. Code § 1715 - Firearms as nonmailable; is officially off the books or simply being ignored waiting for a different DOJ to enforce it again?   I though it is up to the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality not a government agency. 

[Euler]

Unless Congress repeals the law or the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, another DOJ could choose to enforce it again.

[John Q Public]

On 1/16/2026 at 11:48 AM, Euler said:

Unless Congress repeals the law or the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, another DOJ could choose to enforce it again.

This is exactly what will happen, so it amounts to this... Congress isn't going to do it, so it would take the SC to do so, but I give it 2 in 10 is gets accepted at the court and if so, it will be kicked down the road until we have lost the margin to win. Keep generating hits Mark, but as good as this sounds, it means little unless it is adopted by the court.

 

Point: If this was adopted, the federal ban handguns in/on federal property, ergo Post Office, would be stricken as well. The prohibition comes from some wording which basically says, if you can't ship it from the PO you can't have it at the PO. Hence, carry or even possession on/at PO would be tossed. 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2026 at 06:36 PM by John Q Public

[soundguy]

On 1/16/2026 at 9:28 AM, Black Flag said:

an intriguing restoration of rights.

 

I will stick with "can of worms" in as much as while you and I, and others like us, will have some rights restored by being able to mail a gun to anyone without involving an FFL, others who should not have access to firearms may possibly have greater access. 

 

I want to be able to ship/mail to my gunsmith without involving a third party FFL or Ship My Gun on my end.

I don't think we are ready to allow Bob Insurrectionist to directly ship/mail guns to Peter Protester in Minneapolis.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 1/16/2026 at 12:32 PM, soundguy said:

 

I will stick with "can of worms" in as much as while you and I, and others like us, will have some rights restored by being able to mail a gun to anyone without involving an FFL, others who should not have access to firearms may possibly have greater access. 

 

I want to be able to ship/mail to my gunsmith without involving a third party FFL or Ship My Gun on my end.

I don't think we are ready to allow Bob Insurrectionist to directly ship/mail guns to Peter Protester in Minneapolis.

 

Cheers,

Tim

I've always mailed my firearm to the hotel when I travelled, haven't lost one yet. 

 

[John Q Public]

On 1/16/2026 at 12:34 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I've always mailed my firearm to the hotel when I travelled, haven't lost one yet. 

 

Yes, and that is lawful to do so under current law, as long as nobody else takes possession and the firearm is to be used for lawful purpose such as hunting, or competition. We did this many times for USPSA competitions.  The difference here is that we had to use Fed Ex or other, and could not use the USPS, the change would be that you could use the USPS to do that shipping and avoid crazy shipping charges for handguns. You can ship rifles and long guns through USPS, but not handguns. (Not for you SS, for others that know a lot less, and are trying to figure this crazy sh8t out) 

[davel501]

On 1/16/2026 at 11:48 AM, Euler said:

Unless Congress repeals the law or the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, another DOJ could choose to enforce it again.

Have you looked up the statute of limitations on that one yet? 

[ealcala31]

On 1/16/2026 at 12:34 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I've always mailed my firearm to the hotel when I travelled, haven't lost one yet. 

 

Using the Post Office?

[Euler]

If there is no specific limitation (except for murder, terrorism, and child abuse, which have no limitation), the general limitation on federal crimes is 5 years.

I am unable to find a specific limitation on 18 USC 1715. I'm not convinced a limitation is required. Mailing firearms isn't a strict liability crime, which means mens rea (intent to commit a crime) is an element of the crime.

The next step is the Postal Service updating its policy (or not) in light of the DOJ's position on the law. It's probably best not to expect anything to change, then be surprised if it does.

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 1/16/2026 at 5:03 PM, ealcala31 said:

Using the Post Office?

Yes and I consider all Illinois unconstitutional laws voluntary. 

[FarmHand357]

I routinely used UPS or FedEx to ship unloaded firearms to gunsmiths for trigger and other work and they were able to ship them back to me directly.  Then, suddenly this changed and FFLs had to become involved, which made it very cumbersome to get non-local gunsmithing done.  Does this mean that I can now us the USPS both ways legally?

[Glock43]

Semi-related question:

 

How does one ship out a “PICA” firearm out to the manufacturer for repair?  (Or more specifically - getting it back!)

[Euler]

The Post Office isn't charged with enforcing state law (although it might). Neither the Post Office nor the manufacturer knows if you've registered the firearm.

[TomKoz]

On 1/15/2026 at 8:51 PM, ealcala31 said:

The ammunition restriction is still ridiculous. 

I’m guessing most if not all postal carriers used to carry loaded firearms for personal protection back in the founding days.

 

How then does ammunition restrictions jive with the “history and traditions” in Bruen ?

[ealcala31]

On 1/17/2026 at 10:19 PM, TomKoz said:

I’m guessing most if not all postal carriers used to carry loaded firearms for personal protection back in the founding days.

 

How then does ammunition restrictions jive with the “history and traditions” in Bruen ?

Because the OLC came up with this opinion, I am sure they reached out to the Post Office. I am pretty sure the Post Office disagreed and then requested the ammunition restriction stay in-place, and it turned out to be a compromise.

[ealcala31]

On 1/17/2026 at 8:26 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Yes and I consider all Illinois unconstitutional laws voluntary. 

I always tell gun owners shipping a handgun using the Post Office is illegal, but it's a FREE country. I've had GunBroker private sellers tell me they were shipping me a handgun using the Post Office. I won't accept it. If something goes sideways, I will have to testify on the stand. Not my cup of tea...

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

"can't be enforced" until the next administration changes its' mind. 

Lots of allegedly "pro gun" politicians in office until they have free reign to repeal tons of gun laws and regulations and THIS is what we get? I mean ok, yay, but there are much bigger fish to fry. 

[lilguy]

Can you say “stunt”?

 

another bone tossed to us gun owners. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/16/2026 at 11:48 AM, Euler said:

Unless Congress repeals the law or the US Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, another DOJ could choose to enforce it again.

 

This.  And if they have a record of the package, they could enforce it down the road as long as a statute of limitations hasn't expired.

 

[Glock43]

It doesn’t solve the post office “policy”.

 

(Bob attempting to ship his Kimber back to the factory)

 

Miss Friendly (post office employee) - “what’s in the package”.

 

Bob - “a pistol”

 

Miss Friendly - “sorry we can’t ship that for you”

 

 

[Lou]

On 1/23/2026 at 4:19 PM, Glock43 said:

It doesn’t solve the post office “policy”.

 

(Bob attempting to ship his Kimber back to the factory)

 

Miss Friendly (post office employee) - “what’s in the package”.

 

Bob - “a pistol”

 

Miss Friendly - “sorry we can’t ship that for you”

 

 

I've heard that it was rumored that a friend of a friend supposedly answered "Motorcycle parts" and had no trouble.

 

Your mileage may vary.  

[mikew]

On 1/24/2026 at 11:31 AM, Lou said:

I've heard that it was rumored that a friend of a friend supposedly answered "Motorcycle parts" and had no trouble.

 

Your mileage may vary.  

Bring your "stunned" and "concerned" face with you in case you have to question "how did that get in there?"

[TomKoz]

On 1/24/2026 at 11:31 AM, Lou said:

I've heard that it was rumored that a friend of a friend supposedly answered "Motorcycle parts" and had no trouble.

 

Your mileage may vary.  

Kimber fixes motorcycles?