The United States Postal Service has proposed a rule change that would let licensed firearms dealers ship handguns through the mail, reversing a federal prohibition that has stood since 1927. If finalized, the move would mark the first time in almost 100 years that pistols and revolvers could legally travel through the USPS system.
The proposal, first reported by CBS News, would amend existing USPS regulations to permit Federal Firearms Licensees, the dealers and manufacturers already authorized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to use the Postal Service for handgun shipments. Long guns such as rifles and shotguns can already be mailed through USPS, but handguns have been restricted to private carriers like UPS and FedEx since Congress passed the legislation nearly a century ago.
Under current federal law, the mailing of pistols and revolvers through USPS is banned. The proposed rule would carve out an exception for licensed dealers, letting them send and receive handguns through the postal system the same way they already handle long guns. Individual consumers who are not licensed dealers would still be barred from mailing handguns.
The Postal Service published the proposed rule in the Federal Register, opening a public comment period before any final action. USPS framed the change as a way to bring handgun shipping rules in line with the existing framework for rifles and shotguns, which have been mailable for decades.
Gun-rights advocates have long argued that the handgun-specific ban is an outdated relic that forces dealers to rely on private carriers, often at higher cost. The restriction dates to 1927, an era when Congress acted amid concerns about mail-order firearms reaching criminals. Supporters of the change say the licensed-dealer requirement provides sufficient safeguards, since FFLs are already subject to federal background-check obligations and ATF oversight.
The USPS proposal lands in the middle of a broader legal transformation on gun rights. Federal courts across the country have been reassessing longstanding firearms restrictions in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
That ruling has already rippled through cases involving everything from carry permits to possession bans. The Trump administration's Department of Justice has pressed its own Second Amendment challenges, including a lawsuit against Denver over its decades-old ban on AR-15-style rifles.
One case with direct bearing on the postal firearms question came out of Florida. U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled that the federal law barring firearm possession inside post offices was unconstitutional as applied in the case before her. Fox News reported that Mizelle's decision relied squarely on the Bruen framework, finding no historical tradition that justified a blanket firearms ban in post offices.
Judge Mizelle wrote that federal law did not ban guns in government buildings until 1964 and did not specifically prohibit firearms in post offices until 1972, a timeline she found too recent to establish the kind of deep historical roots the Bruen test demands.
"[A] blanket restriction on firearms possession in post offices is incongruent with the American tradition of firearms regulation."
That language from Mizelle's opinion captures the core logic now driving challenges to gun restrictions at every level of government. If the government cannot show that a particular regulation fits within a recognized historical pattern, the restriction fails under Bruen.
The Florida ruling on post-office carry and the USPS shipping proposal are separate legal questions, but they share the same constitutional current. Courts are no longer willing to rubber-stamp firearms restrictions simply because they have been on the books for a long time. The question now is whether the government can trace a given rule back to founding-era or Reconstruction-era analogues.
That standard has put pressure on a wide range of federal gun laws. The Supreme Court itself has taken up cases testing whether certain classes of people can be barred from firearm ownership, including a pending case on whether federal law can prohibit gun ownership for marijuana users.
The Eleventh Circuit recently weighed in on a related front, and the full scope of post-Bruen litigation continues to grow. Courts are grappling with how far the historical-tradition test reaches, whether it covers machine-gun bans, drug-user prohibitions, or rules governing firearms on federal transit systems like Amtrak.
For the USPS handgun proposal specifically, the legal ground may be more straightforward. The rule change does not require a court order. It is an administrative action the Postal Service can pursue through the standard rulemaking process, provided it survives the comment period and any subsequent legal challenges.
Gun-control groups have pushed back against the proposal, arguing that allowing handguns in the mail increases the risk of theft and diversion. Critics contend that the Postal Service lacks the security infrastructure that private carriers have developed for firearms shipments. They also warn that expanding mail-based gun shipping could complicate law-enforcement efforts to track illegal firearms.
Supporters counter that FFLs are the most regulated participants in the firearms market and that every handgun shipped under the proposed rule would still be subject to the same background-check and record-keeping requirements that apply to in-person sales. They note that long guns have traveled through USPS without a comparable public-safety crisis.
The debate also carries a practical dimension. Private carriers charge premium rates for handgun shipping, and some have imposed their own restrictions beyond what federal law requires. Allowing USPS to handle handgun shipments could introduce competition and lower costs for dealers, particularly smaller shops and those in rural areas far from UPS or FedEx hubs.
The original prohibition on mailing handguns dates to the McNary Act of 1927, passed during a period of rising concern about organized crime and the ease of obtaining firearms by mail. At the time, there was no federal firearms licensing system. The first comprehensive federal gun law, the National Firearms Act, would not arrive until 1934, and the Federal Firearms License framework came with the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Gun-rights scholars have argued that the 1927 ban was a product of its era, crafted before the modern regulatory apparatus existed. With FFLs now subject to ATF inspections, mandatory record-keeping, and background-check requirements through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the original rationale for banning handgun mail shipments has eroded considerably.
That argument tracks with the broader post-Bruen trend. Courts and agencies alike are being forced to reexamine whether restrictions that seemed permanent are actually constitutionally grounded, or simply old. The Supreme Court's willingness to take up cases testing federal gun prohibitions signals that no firearm restriction is immune from scrutiny.
The proposed rule must go through the standard notice-and-comment process before USPS can finalize it. Federal agencies are required to consider public input and may revise the rule before issuing a final version. The timeline for that process can vary, but major regulatory changes typically take several months to a year after the comment period closes.
Legal challenges are possible from either direction. Gun-control organizations could sue to block the rule, while gun-rights groups could push for even broader changes if they believe the final version is too narrow. Any litigation would likely be shaped by the Bruen framework, which has become the dominant lens for evaluating firearms regulations in federal court.
Investigators and regulators will also need to address logistical questions. USPS would need protocols for handling, tracking, and securing handgun shipments. Authorities have not publicly confirmed what specific security measures the Postal Service plans to implement if the rule takes effect.
For now, the proposal sits in the Federal Register, waiting for public comment. It is one piece of a much larger realignment in American firearms law, driven by courts, agencies, and an administration willing to revisit rules that previous governments treated as settled.
A law written when Al Capone was still building his empire may finally meet its end. Whether that happens through a federal rulemaking or a courtroom remains the only open question.
