Link

Judge Rules USPS Gun Bans Unconstitutional At “Ordinary” Post Offices

FORT WORTH, TX — A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas has ruled that the long-standing federal ban on firearms inside United States Post Offices and on surrounding postal property is unconstitutional as applied to members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and two named Texas plaintiffs.

Chief District Judge Reed O’Connor granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, striking down 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) as applied to the prohibition on carrying firearms for self-defense at what the court defined as ‘ordinary’ post offices.” These are stand-alone post offices not located on military bases or inside multi-use federal facilities that house other government functions where firearms would otherwise be prohibited.

Who is Covered
Two Texas license holders named as plaintiffs
Members of Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)
Members of Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
For these groups, the ruling provides both declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning the government is barred from enforcing the ban against them in ordinary post offices and on postal property such as parking lots.

Real-World Considerations
Although legally protected, those covered should exercise caution:

Awareness Gap: Postal employees and some law enforcement officers may not yet know about this new ruling. Signs banning firearms will likely remain posted until USPS formally updates its policies.
Potential Confrontations: Someone openly carrying could still be questioned or reported despite being legally covered.
Concealed Carry Advantage: If you are carrying concealed and are legally covered as a SAF or FPC member (or named plaintiff), no one should know you are armed, reducing the chance of conflict.
It is critical that individuals ensure they are active SAF or FPC members before relying on this injunction, as the relief is limited to those groups and the specific plaintiffs.

Why It Matters
Millions of Americans visit the post office each week, and until now, federal law forced them to leave their lawfully carried firearms behind. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut highlighted the importance of this ruling, noting that there is no historical tradition of banning firearms in post offices. FPC President Brandon Combs emphasized that “governments cannot ban weapons in unsecured public spaces, full stop.”

The ruling is another application of the Bruen framework, which requires the government to point to a relevant historical analogue if it wants to restrict conduct covered by the Second Amendment. Judge O’Connor concluded that no such analogue exists for post offices, noting that the Founders themselves never imposed such bans.

This is a major legal win for FPC, SAF, and their members, but as with all recent court victories, practical implementation may lag behind the ruling. Those covered should remain cautious and informed.

The citizens that get a CC license are among the most law abiding of any. That’s the States where required.

Yes, concealed means concealed.

Now just get the postal service to ship guns easier, for the non-FFL shipper.

Great to read this. My PO branch was robbed a couple of months ago. Nice for the thug to know he wouldn't be harmed while he committing his crime.

I've always thought the law was weird in its interpretation too. LE obviously carries on PO property, even though for the most part they have no jurisdiction on Federal Property unless there is a memorandum of association with the Postal Inspectors for that particular PO. By that, I mean they can't carry on postal property either as the law doesn't stamp out a provision for LE. I'm probably all wrong on this but I've got no skills in the law except how I interpret it.

Kudos to these guys to perhaps clearing a path for the rest of us.

quote:

This is a major legal win for FPC, SAF, and their members, but as with all recent court victories, practical implementation may lag behind the ruling.

What is there to “implement”? Wait for the PO to put up the sign on the door that it’s now ok to cc inside?

quote:

Now just get the postal service to ship guns easier, for the non-FFL shipper.

Yeah, non-FFLs being able to ship long guns but not handguns is one of the most asinine laws on the book.

Btw, Trump needs to nominate Judge Reed O’Connor for the next available vacant seat on SCOTUS. There is no better judge than he, when it comes to defending the Second Amendment.

quote:

Who is Covered

Two Texas license holders named as plaintiffs

Members of Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)

Members of Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
For these groups, the ruling provides both declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning the government is barred from enforcing the ban against them in ordinary post offices and on postal property such as parking lots.

Both are great groups in the 2A battle in courts. They're the ones that beat BATFE on the pistol brace. For nationwide issues, both are smart too as they find solid, upstanding plaintiffs in states with sane circuit courts of appeal (e.g. Texas and 5th circuit).

I'm a member of both groups

I’m a SAF Lifer. Yeah, both of these organizations have done more for the Second Amendment cause in the past several years than the useless NRA.

The PO ban always seemed kind of silly, especially since the public wasn't the problem. The shooters were mostly, maybe all, postal workers.
Just a (another) knee jerk reaction by politicians.

quote:

Who is Covered

Two Texas license holders named as plaintiffs

Members of Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)

Members of Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
For these groups, the ruling provides both declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning the government is barred from enforcing the ban against them in ordinary post offices and on postal property such as parking lots.

Question…


How come the ruling only applies to the listed people/groups and wouldn’t apply to everyone? If the Judge ruled it as unconstitutional, how can it still apply to others?

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
The PO ban always seemed kind of silly, especially since the public wasn't the problem. The shooters were mostly, maybe all, postal workers.
Just a (another) knee jerk reaction by politicians.

It doesn't even matter who the prior shooters were. If someone has an intention to shoot up a PO, would they have thought "darn, there is a ban so I can't do that" or would they act per intentions?

I can't prove it, but I'm skeptical any criminal or socio/psychopath was deterred from any desired action because it was banned or outlawed. Gun control laws are written by morons incapable of rational thought.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Who is Covered

Two Texas license holders named as plaintiffs

Members of Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)

Members of Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
For these groups, the ruling provides both declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning the government is barred from enforcing the ban against them in ordinary post offices and on postal property such as parking lots.

Question…

How come the ruling only applies to the listed people/groups and wouldn’t apply to everyone? If the Judge ruled it as unconstitutional, how can it still apply to others?

Seems like a district judge that likes to stay in his lane and not rule over the entire country.

Also note that this same district judge who presided over one of the pistol brace cases (Mock v Garland) and granted injunction to only the plaintiffs. The Biden Justice (more like Just Us) Dept appealed to 5th circuit, it didn't go very well for them, and then the Trump Justice Dept asked to dismiss the appeal.