The Department of Justice has officially walked away from its appeal in one of the most important Second Amendment cases involving ordinary federal property. That’s a major win, but gun owners should understand the ruling before changing how they carry.
On July 23, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the government’s appeal in Firearms Policy Coalition v. Blanche at the government’s request. Chief Judge Reed O’Connor’s permanent injunction therefore remains in place.
The federal government may not enforce the challenged post office firearm restrictions against the individual plaintiffs or any present or future member of the Firearms Policy Coalition, or the Second Amendment Foundation, when they possess or carry firearms in an “ordinary” United States Post Office or on surrounding postal property covered by the order.
The federal ban hasn’t disappeared for everyone. Every post office isn’t covered, and other laws still matter.
The Lawsuit Challenged Two Federal Restrictions
FPC, SAF, and two individual gun owners filed the lawsuit on June 18, 2024, in the Northern District of Texas. They challenged two federal provisions restricting firearm possession and carry at post offices and on postal property.
The first was 18 U.S.C. § 930(a). It generally makes it a federal crime to knowingly possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a “federal facility.” That term includes a building or part of a building owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees regularly perform official duties.
The parties agreed this definition includes post offices. A violation can carry up to one year in federal prison, plus a fine.
The second was 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), a Postal Service regulation adopted in 1972. It broadly prohibits carrying firearms, other dangerous weapons, or explosives on postal property, openly or concealed, and also prohibits storing them there unless the possession is for an official purpose.
Because the regulation reaches “postal property,” it also affected parking lots and other areas beyond the front door.
The Court Applied the Supreme Court’s Bruen Test
The district court evaluated the case under the test announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and later explained in United States v. Rahimi.
Once the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the government must show that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. A modern law does not need an identical historical twin, but it must have a sufficiently similar historical basis.
The government argued that post offices should be treated as sensitive government buildings where firearms could be prohibited. Judge O’Connor rejected the idea that every government building automatically qualifies as a constitutionally protected “sensitive place.” The court focused on history and the function of ordinary post offices.
Post offices existed before the Second Amendment was adopted. The Founding generation knew that post offices, mail carriers, and mail could be targets of violence. Yet the historical response was to punish robbery and dangerous conduct, not to broadly disarm peaceable citizens at post offices.
The court also noted that the government did not specifically ban firearms on postal property until 1972, nearly two centuries after the Founding.
On September 30, 2025, the court ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) were unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs and their members carrying firearms inside ordinary post offices and on surrounding postal property. The court permanently barred the government from enforcing those provisions against them in covered locations.
Why the March, 2026 Clarification Mattered
After losing, the government tried to narrow the injunction. It argued that protection should apply only to the two named individuals and organization members who belonged to FPC or SAF when the lawsuit was filed.
Judge O’Connor rejected that effort, and on March 17, 2026, he clarified that the permanent injunction applies to the plaintiffs and to all present and future members of FPC and SAF. Membership when the lawsuit began wasn’t required.
The government appealed, then filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its own appeal. The court entered the dismissal on July 23, 2026. The district court’s judgment and permanent injunction are therefore the final outcome of the case. That is why the “DOJ backs down” headline is fair. The government didn’t obtain a narrower ruling or reversal. It abandoned the appeal.
Does This Apply to Me If I Am Not an FPC or SAF Member?
No.
The injunction protects the named plaintiffs and all present and future members of FPC and SAF. It’s not a universal order protecting every gun owner in the country. A nonmember may argue that the court’s reasoning should apply equally to them, but that’s not the same as already being protected by the injunction.
Joining FPC or SAF may bring someone within the covered group, but members should still document membership, follow other laws, and confirm the location is covered. The court’s order is powerful, but it’s not a permission slip to stop paying attention to the details.
What Counts as an “Ordinary” Post Office?
The court gave that phrase a specific definition. An ordinary post office doesn’t include a post office located inside:
- A military base or similarly restricted-access area; or
- A federally owned or leased building housing government functions other than a post office, when firearm carry in that building would otherwise be prohibited.
A typical standalone neighborhood post office is the clearest example.
A postal counter inside a multi-use federal building isn’t covered when the building also houses other government functions and firearms are otherwise prohibited there. A post office on a military installation or another restricted-access location is also outside the order.
A post office inside a privately owned mall or shopping center is more complicated. The order doesn’t automatically exclude a mall location, but ownership, lease arrangements, postal boundaries, private-property rules, and state law could affect the answer.
Shared parking lots can create similar uncertainty. Don’t assume every postal counter, contract postal unit, or parking space with a USPS sign is covered.
Is the Federal Ban Still on the Books?
Yes.
Both challenged provisions remain in federal law. The court entered an “as-applied” ruling and an injunction protecting particular plaintiffs and association members. It didn’t erase the statute or regulation in every possible application. An as-applied ruling decides that a law can’t constitutionally be enforced against certain people engaged in the conduct addressed by the case.
A “facial” ruling is broader and generally attacks the law itself across its applications. Judge O’Connor expressly evaluated this as an as-applied challenge involving firearms carried by the plaintiffs in ordinary post offices. That distinction isn’t just legal technicality. It determines who can rely on the ruling and who may still face enforcement.
Can a Non-Member Still Be Prosecuted?
Yes.
Because the federal provisions remain in place and the injunction doesn’t expressly protect non-members, a non-member could still be investigated, cited, arrested, or prosecuted under federal law. Even a protected member shouldn’t treat the ruling as permission to ignore every sign or instruction.
The injunction is limited to the challenged federal provisions, covered people, firearms, and ordinary post offices and surrounding property. It does not create immunity from unrelated offenses or override state carry laws, prohibited-person laws, licensing rules, restrictions at other federal facilities, or laws governing threatening, reckless, or criminal conduct.
Again, verify membership, confirm the location, understand state law, and avoid assumptions based on a headline.
A Major Win, but the Details Still Matter
The larger lesson is that firearms law often turns on details: who is protected, where the person was standing, what property was involved, which law was being enforced, and whether another restriction applies. That is why gun owners should have a plan before a legal emergency begins.
Armed Attorneys gives members direct access to experienced self-defense attorneys before, during, and after a self-defense incident. Exclusively for Texans, our goal is simple: help gun owners understand the law, make informed decisions, and avoid facing the legal system alone. Learn more about Armed Attorneys and choose the membership level that fits how you live, carry, and travel. Save $20 at sign-up with promo code: SNW.
The information on this site is presented for general informational and educational purposes only and is not legal advice and does not form a lawyer-client relationship. You should not rely on this information or its applicability to any specific circumstances without speaking with an attorney. Armed Attorneys, LLC is not a law firm and does not directly provide legal representation. Legal services are provided solely by licensed attorneys approved or contracted by Armed Attorneys, LLC.