DOJ Rules Century-Old Statute Prohibiting Shipping Handguns Through the US Mail Unconstitutional

USPS Priority Mail US mail

In a monumental development for gun owners, the Department of Justice has acknowledged that one of the oldest federal gun control laws on the books is unconstitutional. The DOJ Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum last week titled, “Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1715.” The statute at issue concerned the federal prohibition on sending handguns through the U.S. mail enacted in 1927.

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 1715 provides,

Pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person are nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried by the mails or delivered by any officer or employee of the Postal Service. …

Whoever knowingly deposits for mailing or delivery, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at any place to which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any pistol, revolver, or firearm declared nonmailable by this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

As the 1927 U.S. Postal Service ban pre-dated the Gun Control Act of 1968, at the time the act served as a ban on mail-order handguns through the U.S. Post direct to consumers. Since the gun control act of 1968, customers purchasing firearms at retail are generally required to obtain all firearms through an FFL or gun dealer in their state.

Still, the USPS handgun prohibition continues to create massive and needless headaches for law-abiding gun owners.

Handgun owners can’t use the U.S. mail to ship their firearms to themselves, say during a move or for a hunting trip or competition. Astute gun owners will be aware of the potential perils of lawfully traveling through certain parts of the country with a legally-owned firearm, despite the federal protections provided by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act – making mailing a firearm preferable in many instances. Moreover, handgun owners can’t use the USPS to ship their firearm directly to a manufacturer or gunsmith for modification or repair.

The Postal Service prohibition forced gun owners to use private companies for shipping handguns. However, in recent years the major private shipping companies have cracked down on firearm shipments from non-FFLs.

For instance, UPS states on its website,

Shipments containing Firearm Products are accepted for transportation only from shippers who are federally licensed and have an approved UPS agreement for the transportation of Firearm Products.

FedEx provides,

Shippers that do not hold an FFL are not eligible to obtain approval and are prohibited from shipping firearms with FedEx.

With this private suppression of firearms shipping, the USPS’s role in the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights has become more important than ever.

The Trump administration DOJ appears to understand the threat, acknowledging in the OLC memo that,

major express services currently forbid all persons from shipping firearms, except for some federal firearms licensees that have private shipping agreements. Thus, unlicensed private citizens face a complete ban on shipping concealable firearms, even though handguns are among the core “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

In the memorandum, OLC subjected 18 U.S.C. § 1715 to the proper Second Amendment analysis outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the NRA-supported case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

First, the document makes clear the U.S. Mail prohibition serves an illegitimate suppression of a protected right, explaining, “to frustrate protected arms’ transportability, thereby making it more difficult for citizens to obtain such weapons—constitutes a per se infringement upon the Second Amendment.”

Next, the OLC determined that the measure is not consistent with the history and tradition of U.S. firearms regulation. The document pointed out “We did not find any relevant historical tradition of generally prohibiting the shipment of constitutionally protected arms.”

After making these dispositive findings, the memorandum concludes,

the Executive Branch may not, consistent with the Constitution, enforce section 1715 with respect to constitutionally protected firearms, and the Postal Service should modify its regulations to conform with the scope of the Second Amendment as described in this opinion.

If the directions of the OLC memorandum are carried through, it will be the latest in a litany of important steps that the Trump administration has taken to protect Second Amendment rights.

While the DOJ OLC is addressing matters regarding the USPS, gun owners would no doubt appreciate it if the office applied a similarly judicious Bruen analysis to the postal service’s ban on carry at post offices open to the public.

Hopefully, the USPS will take swift action to comply with OLC’s findings. We will keep our readers informed as the situation develops.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

12 thoughts on “DOJ Rules Century-Old Statute Prohibiting Shipping Handguns Through the US Mail Unconstitutional”

  1. This needs to be ‘codified’ as unconstitutional by court ruling. The DOJ can say all day long that something is unconstitutional, and this is definitely unconstitutional, but it doesn’t have any staying power behind it as a democrat admin could get power and their DOJ could say ‘hey, we rescind that opinion by the other DOJ.”

    And if congress to changes the law, that could be undone by a democrat controlled congress changing it back.

    So this needs some actual decision of the court to say its unconstitutional. But at the same time the DOJ did this, there is a case in court about it the DOJ is asking to be dismissed but if its dismissed then there would be no court ruling as to constitutionality.

  2. Regardless of the outcome of this ruling, I’m pretty sure that I would not trust USPS to ship my firearm. I’ve had too many issues with lost packages and poor service to trust my expensive firearm to a government entity.

  3. The publicly stated purpose to ban mail-order guns was to stop the negroes from getting guns. At one time in this country, you could have a mail order house. Delivered to you. You simply had to put it together.

    At one time if the gun store refused your business. You just get what you wanted using a mail-order catalog.

    And you can still buy a house. And have it delivered to your property. It should be the same way with arms and ammunition.

  4. “Hopefully, the USPS will take swift action to comply with OLC’s findings” That’s rich. Nothing the USPS does was ever or will be swift.

  5. Left wing violence – When they come in the door shoot the insane unhinged left wingers: Your Church Isn’t Immune – After Minnesota’s Church Invasion, It’s Time to Prepare.

    “On Sunday, a mob of anti-ICE protesters stormed a church in St. Paul. Minn., during a church service. The radicals, with disgraced former CNN host Don Lemon along for the ride, terrified the congregants by disrupting the service.

    Radical leftists claim that the protest — or act of terror, which is really what it was — is free speech that the First Amendment protects. What they miss is that a church is private property, and the First Amendment also ensures freedom of religion.

    Furthermore, as my HotAir colleague David Strom points out, Minnesota’s Democrats have not only not condemned the domestic terrorism, but some of them have gone on record promoting it. He writes, “The goal is to frighten, intimidate, make life hell, and in some cases, actually harm people. And it is our top political and government leadership who are egging it on, or worse.”

    ‘People have been stalked, employees of hotels threatened, and restaurants have been challenged to poison [ICE] agents,’ David reports. ‘{ICE} Agents have crowds banging pots and pans and blowing whistles at night to prevent their ability to sleep, and, famously, churchgoers have had their worship service invaded.’
    …”

    [note: The actions of Lemon and his insane left wingers, the new version of the KKK and Nazi Brown Shirts, in this act of domestic terrorism, violated a couple of different federal laws when they did this. See below video from Washington Gun Law for explanation.]

    ht* tps://pjmedia.com/chris-queen/2026/01/20/your-church-isnt-immune-after-minnesotas-church-invasion-its-time-to-prepare-n4948521

    1. Washington Gun Law: How Much Trouble is Don Lemon In? [telling about laws violated by Lemon and his insane left wingers, exactly violated, just like the laws define.]

      ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xEbNt1c65Y

    2. Clarification for : “And it is our top political and government leadership who are egging it on, or worse.”

      This is in reference to Minnesota left wing democrats leadership.

  6. Caught on Video: Woman Explains How She Helps Illegal Aliens Bribe Ohio Judges.

    ht* tps://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/01/20/shocking-video-indicates-illegal-aliens-bribed-ohio-judges-n4948517

  7. If UPS and FedEx will not accept firearms from non-FFL’s how is one supposed to have a firearm repaired?
    It must be 8-10 years ago I used FedEx to ship my firearm to repaired and at that time only certain locations would accept it for shipping.

  8. In Gun Control Case – Hawaii ‘vampire’ law thing currently before SCOTUS, there is no historical precedent for it but Hawaii tries arguing their King had a rule at one time and that’s historical precedent so there ! completely ignoring that Hawaii is bound by the constitution and the ‘spirit of aloha’ doesn’t count. SCOTUS overall was not impressed, that is except, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who so desperately wants to help Hawaii out to find an historical precedent for their unconstitutional gun control law that she cites the ‘Black Codes’, one of the most unconstitutional things that ever existed, as historical precedence for Hawaii’s ‘vampire’ law gun control.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Cites the Black Codes as Constitutional in Gun Control Case.



    Carrie Severino
    @JCNSeverino
    Things I didn’t have on my bingo card today: Justice Jackson defending the racist Black Codes as precedent for what we should consider constitutional.

    Carrie Severino
    @JCNSeverino
    Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris’s response to Justice Gorsuch’s question on the relevance of the Black Codes was spot on:

    ‘It is 2026, and it is somewhat astonishing that Black Codes, which are unconstitutional, are being offered as evidence of what our tradition of constitutionally permissible firearm regulation looks like.’

    Astonishingly, it’s Jackson arguing this. Fortunately, Justice Samuel Alito was there to point out the irony.

    Must Listen: Justice Alito reveals the obvious irony of citing the Black Codes as justification for Hawaii’s 2023 firearm restriction law.

    ‘They wanted to disarm the Black population in order to help the Klan terrorize them…they wanted to put them at the mercy of racist law enforcement officers. So is it not the height of irony to cite a law that was enacted for exactly the purpose of preventing someone from exercising the Second Amendment right, to cite this as an example of what the Second Amendment protects.”’
    …”

    ht* tps://twitchy.com/brettt/2026/01/20/alito-points-out-irony-of-jackson-citing-the-black-codes-as-justification-for-hawaiis-gun-control-n2424174

Scroll to Top