Ban on carrying guns in post offices ruled unconstitutional by U.S. judge

Peace through
superior firepower

posted

Old thread.

So, I saw a post on Twitter which said "According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)... law-abiding citizens CAN carry a constitutionally protected firearm for self-defense in post offices."

I figured this was just the usual inaccurate rehash of old information, so I checked with Grok. Here's what I found:

Yes, the claim is accurate based on a recent (August 12, 2026) U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum opinion.

The OLC opinion, titled something to the effect of “Application of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) to Post Offices” (a slip opinion for the Attorney General), concludes that federal law permits otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense inside post offices that are generally open to the public. Key points from the opinion and contemporaneous reporting include:

Statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 930: Subsection (a) generally prohibits possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons in federal facilities (which include post offices). However, subsection (d)(3) creates an exception for “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” The OLC reads “other lawful purposes” to include self-defense. It describes carrying a firearm for self-defense while entering a building held open to the public as a “paradigmatic” lawful purpose (drawing on Supreme Court recognition in Heller that the inherent right of self-defense is central to the Second Amendment). No special nexus is required between the reason for entering the post office and the reason for carrying the firearm.

Postal Service regulation: The longstanding USPS regulation (39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)) imposing a broader ban on firearms on postal property (without a comparable self-defense exception) is unlawful as applied to otherwise law-abiding citizens carrying constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense in post offices open to the public. An agency regulation cannot override a congressional statutory exception.

Enforcement: The Executive Branch may not enforce either § 930(a) or the Postal Service regulation against a law-abiding person carrying a constitutionally protected firearm into a public post office for the purpose of self-defense.

Important limitations and caveats (as noted in the opinion and reporting):

The person must be lawfully entitled to possess and carry the firearm (i.e., otherwise law-abiding, consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws).

It applies specifically to post offices (or parts thereof) that are generally open to the public. It does not address post offices closed to the public, restricted postal facilities (e.g., on military bases or past airport security), or other federal facilities.

This is an OLC legal opinion guiding Executive Branch interpretation and enforcement; it is not a Supreme Court ruling striking down the ban nationwide, nor does it automatically change all practical realities (e.g., local enforcement practices or signage may lag). There has been related litigation, including cases where courts issued injunctions and the government later dropped appeals.

This aligns with broader post-Bruen developments and earlier related OLC actions (e.g., a January 2026 opinion on the unconstitutionality of restrictions on mailing certain firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 1715). Always consult current primary sources, state/local laws, and legal counsel for personal decisions, as interpretations and enforcement can evolve.

Posts: 114707 | Registered: January 20, 2000

Ignored post by parabellum posted

Ogie

Imagination and focus
become reality

posted

Yes, this is great news!

Posts: 7119 | Location: Northwest Indiana | Registered: August 15, 2004

Ignored post by Ogie posted

Paten

probably a good thing
I don't have a cut

posted

This is good news but I just want to say that I wouldn't use any AI as a confirmation source for anything important. Usually, the AI will list the links for it's sources at the bottom of it's response. I would use one of those links as the source because AIs also use sketchy sources sometimes.

Posts: 3781 | Location: Tampa, FL | Registered: February 09, 2002

Ignored post by Paten posted

Peace through
superior firepower

posted

Those sources are listed in Grok's response. I simply didn't include them, since I checked them myself.

I feel quite confident in saying that throughout the years of this forum, no one has demonstrated- consistently- a strong desire for the verified integrity of all information posted here, on all subjects, even trivial ones.

I'll also take this opportunity to say that I realize many of you have a distaste for all things AI, including its aggregation of facts and its commentary thereon, but I would appreciate the acknowledgement that I make every effort to get things right when it comes to dissemination of information in this forum, and I proceed cautiously when AI is involved. Grok is the only AI source I use and in my experience, it takes a neutral tone.

Have a little faith, please. I've earned it.

Here are the sources Grok cited, Paten:

https://www.ammoland.com/2026/...public-post-offices/

https://www.concealedcarry.com...rry-in-post-offices/

https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1457751/dl

https://www.pewpewtactical.com...ffice-gun-ban-fight/

Posts: 114707 | Registered: January 20, 2000

Ignored post by parabellum posted

Prefontaine

Member

posted

That’s why I have that little cheap gun safe thing wired under the passenger seat. I can finally remove it. It was only there for the post office and I’d have to park across the street so my vehicle and the locked firearm were not on their property. Thanks for the notification.

What am I doing? I'm talking to an empty telephone

Posts: 14246 | Location: Down South | Registered: January 16, 2010

Ignored post by Prefontaine posted

sigmonkey

A Grateful American
Picture of sigmonkey

posted

quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:...
Have a little faith, please. I've earned it...

_{"the meaning of life, is to give life meaning" ✡ Ani Yehudi אני יהודי Le'olam lo shuv לעולם לא עוד}

Posts: 46551 | Location: Box 1663 Santa Fe, New Mexico | Registered: December 20, 2008

Ignored post by sigmonkey posted

octo

Member

posted

Thank-you Para.I've been watching this and wondering. your clarification is appreciated. You are trusted in all things as to the work you do on this forum,smetimes stuff just falls out of my mouth in my old age and my ears say,whered that sh t come from. just sayun.

Posts: 21 | Registered: July 12, 2019

Ignored post by octo posted

Southern Rebel

Member

posted

quote:
Originally posted by octo:
Thank-you Para.I've been watching this and wondering. your clarification is appreciated. You are trusted in all things as to the work you do on this forum,smetimes stuff just falls out of my mouth in my old age and my ears say,whered that sh t come from. just sayun.

My great-granddaughter loved to learn new words and use them. Once she learned the word "prosthetic", she asked me, "Grandad, you have prosthetics for your hearing, prosthetics for seeing, prosthetics for your eating." Yes, I do honey - what's your question". She smugly replied, "Well, when are you gonna get some prosthetics for your mouth to get rid of your 'cussin'?"

Maybe a future prosthetic can be invented to prevent stupid words from falling out of the mouth of us older "challenged" ones.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: February 15, 2009

Ignored post by Southern Rebel posted

Peace through
superior firepower

posted

And to be perfectly clear- this is the same as the ongoing silencer ruling trainwreck, in that you don't want to be a test case:

quote:
This is an OLC legal opinion guiding Executive Branch interpretation and enforcement; it is not a Supreme Court ruling striking down the ban nationwide, nor does it automatically change all practical realities (e.g., local enforcement practices or signage may lag). There has been related litigation, including cases where courts issued injunctions and the government later dropped appeals.

Posts: 114707 | Registered: January 20, 2000

Ignored post by parabellum posted

Ogie

Imagination and focus
become reality

posted

I agree with not wanting to be a test case. However, it seems as if this is not a case of making the law unconstitutional, it seems like it is a different interpretation of the law. One in which if you are legally allowed to carry, then you would be carrying "incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." The other lawful purposes being that you are not a convicted felon, etc.

Posts: 7119 | Location: Northwest Indiana | Registered: August 15, 2004

Ignored post by Ogie posted

Peace through
superior firepower

posted

However you look at it, the law is now unclear, and those who face arrest for violating this unclear law will be, in fact, test cases.

Posts: 114707 | Registered: January 20, 2000

Ignored post by parabellum posted

shovelhead

Page late and a dollar short

posted

quote:
Originally posted by Prefontaine:
That’s why I have that little cheap gun safe thing wired under the passenger seat. I can finally remove it. It was only there for the post office and I’d have to park across the street so my vehicle and the locked firearm were not on their property. Thanks for the notification.

Same thing here.

-------------------------------------——————
————————--Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even, usually, surpassing knowledge(E.J.Potter, A.K.A. The Michigan Madman)

Posts: 9243 | Location: Livingston County Michigan USA | Registered: August 11, 2002

Ignored post by shovelhead posted

Biker_dude

Member

posted

I always considered it ridiculous that one could not even leave his 22LR derringer in his car at the post office, but could walk inside, carrying an AR15 with 30 round mag and stand in line (to mail the AR to an FFL).

I wonder if the clowns at the PO recognize the inconsistency.

Posts: 518 | Registered: October 19, 2024

Ignored post by Biker_dude posted

trapper189

Savor the limelight

posted

You can mail that AR-15 to yourself as well. I used to do that with my hunting rifle from Florida to Michigan care of my Uncle Bob in Michigan. In Michigan, I’d mail it back to myself in Florida.

As of yet, no one has ever been able to explain what exception to the laws allows one to walk into the Post Office with a concealed long gun for shipping. I still say it’s the “official purpose” exception in the law. The official purpose of the Post Office is to take letters and packages and deliver them somewhere else. If I’m at the Post Office to mail something, I’m there for an official purpose.

Posts: 14774 | Location: SWFL | Registered: October 10, 2007

Ignored post by trapper189 posted

Rick Lee

Member

posted

Concealed means concealed. If you really have to use it to defend your life, the illegal carrying charge would be the least of your problems.

Freewill Firearms
07 FFL, Class 2 SOT

Posts: 4429 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005

Ignored post by Rick Lee posted

ruger357

Member

posted

It’s ironic that this started with a postal employee. As I recall, mail carriers used to have an exception that they could carry a gun when no one else could. Hell, Ruger even had a postal worker branded Speed six revolver. I think Para or someone here has one.

-----------------------------------------

Roll Tide!

Glock Certified Armorer
NRA Certified Firearms Instructor

Posts: 8441 | Location: Hoover, AL | Registered: November 06, 2006

Ignored post by ruger357 posted

Ogie

Imagination and focus
become reality

posted

quote:
Originally posted by ruger357:
It’s ironic that this started with a postal employee. As I recall, mail carriers used to have an exception that they could carry a gun when no one else could. Hell, Ruger even had a postal worker branded Speed six revolver. I think Para or someone here has one.

I don't think that is accurate. I started work there in 1967 and at that time they had a permit for carry that was issued by the Post Office and it was given to some employees who had to go pick up the mail with valuable cargo, such as stamps,from trains that came in. I remember one time I went to pick up mail from a train station and in that train shipment was a $250,000 shipment of stamps. There should have been an armed guard there with me to pick up the stamps, etc., but I was on my own. Somewhere in my old paperwork I still have a permit. Anyway, not all Postal employees were allowed to carry, in fact I only knew of one or two in our facility.

Posts: 7119 | Location: Northwest Indiana | Registered: August 15, 2004

Ignored post by Ogie posted