A 1927 law that is still in effect in 2026 has an almost charming quality. The federal ban on mailing concealable firearms was drafted during the administration of Calvin Coolidge, when the Thompson submachine gun was the nation’s preferred symbol of mob violence, and when Congress determined that pistols traveling through the mail were an issue worth addressing with the kind of blatant confidence permitted by the time. That confidence has vanished after almost a century. The United States Postal Service, of all organizations, is being asked to repeal the law after the Department of Justice declared it to be unconstitutional.
The proposed rule, which was discreetly released on April 2, would allow regular people to mail firearms within state borders to one another. The regulations become more stringent across state lines, requiring an individual to send a gun to themselves via a third party and open the package at the other end. It’s a limited workaround intended for travelers and hunters, but once the initial ban is lifted, it’s difficult to ignore how much wider the door opens.
| Key Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Proposal | USPS rule change allowing private mailing of concealable firearms |
| Origin of Existing Law | 1927 Congressional ban under Section 1715 of Title 18 |
| Triggering Memo | January 2026 opinion from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel |
| Rule Proposed | April 2, 2026 |
| Public Comment Period Ended | May 4, 2026 |
| Opposing Coalition | Democratic attorneys general from 24 states |
| Notable Opponent | Nevada AG Aaron Ford, citing the 2017 Mandalay Bay shooting |
| Constitutional Argument | Second Amendment, per DOJ Office of Legal Counsel |
| Conditions Under Proposal | Unloaded, securely packaged; in-state private sales permitted |
| Cross-State Rule | Sender must mail to themselves via a third party |
The DOJ’s justification, outlined in a January memo, is based on a straightforward claim: the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from refusing to ship a product that is protected by the constitution if it operates a parcel service. On paper, that reasoning seems neat. In reality, it raises issues that the memo doesn’t really address. Beyond a shipping label, there is no background check, no licensed dealer involved, and no paper trail. The term “trafficking pipeline waiting to happen” has already been used by critics, and while it does a lot of rhetorical work, the underlying concern isn’t irrational.
One of the most prominent voices in the coalition letter was Aaron Ford, the attorney general of Nevada. The argument made by his state is particularly persuasive. Nevada imposed stricter background check requirements on private sales in response to the Mandalay Bay shooting in 2017, which claimed sixty lives and was the deadliest mass shooting in contemporary American history. What the state spent years developing would be essentially circumvented by a federal rule that permits firearms to travel between strangers via the mail without any of those checks. It was a slap in the face, according to Ford. The political contradiction exists whether you agree with it or not.
As this develops, it seems as though the postal service has been put in a difficult situation. Handguns are not a completely foreign category because USPS already allows the mailing of rifles and shotguns under certain restrictions. The philosophical framing has been altered. The new memo views mail-order pistols as a civil rights issue, whereas the 1927 law treated them as a public safety issue. This moment is unique because of that change rather than the technical aspects of tracking and packaging.
What comes next is still unknown. The USPS reports that it is reviewing comments after the public comment period ended on May 4. State difficulties appear to be unavoidable. Litigation does the same. The idea that certain things just shouldn’t go through the mail, which kept the law in place for a century, appears weaker than it did a year ago. The law itself may or may not survive the bureaucratic process.
