On Thursday, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), led by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, issued a groundbreaking memorandum opinion concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 1715, the nearly century-old federal statute prohibiting the mailing of concealable firearms, is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected arms, such as handguns. This opinion marks a significant application of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, extending Second Amendment protections to the shipment of firearms via the U.S. Postal Service.
Enacted in 1927 as one of the earliest federal gun control measures, § 1715 declares “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person” nonmailable, with limited exceptions for government officials and licensed dealers. The law was originally designed to curb mail-order handgun sales that bypassed strict state and local regulations during the early 20th century. Today, combined with policies from private carriers like FedEx, UPS, and DHL, which largely prohibit non-licensed individuals from shipping firearms, it effectively creates a near-total ban on private citizens mailing handguns.
The OLC opinion argues that this restriction violates the Second Amendment. Handguns, the opinion notes, are “among the core ‘arms’ protected” by the amendment, as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Under Bruen’s framework, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the government bears the burden of justifying modern restrictions with historical analogues.
The opinion finds § 1715 lacking on multiple fronts. First, it burdens the core Second Amendment right to “keep and bear” arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. Practical scenarios illustrate this burden: a traveler flying through restrictive jurisdictions like New York, driving with interruptions that void interstate transport protections under 18 U.S.C. § 926A, or using buses that refuse firearms as baggage often leave mailing as the only viable option for transporting a handgun. Yet private carriers’ bans and § 1715 foreclose this, stifling lawful travel with arms.
Second, the law impedes incidental rights necessary to exercise the Second Amendment, such as acquiring firearms (e.g., receiving one directly via mail from a family member or seller) or maintaining them (e.g., mailing to a gunsmith for repairs without involving a federal firearms licensee, thereby incurring additional costs and delays).
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
Rival Arms Slide Completion Kit for Gen 3 / 4 Glock 9mm Pistols | GunMag Warehouse | $ 119.99 |
|
|
|
Trijicon HD XR Night Sight Set For Glock 9mm Pistols, Orange - GL601-C-600836 | Palmetto State Armory | $ 157.99 $ 141.99 |
|
|
Amend2 Glock Stick MOD-C 9mm 34-Round Magazine for Glock 17 Pistols - Smoke | GunMag Warehouse | $ 20.99 |
|
|
|
Glock G43 Gen3 9mm Pistol, 6+1 RD, Flat Dark Earth - UI4350201DE | Palmetto State Armory | $ 599.99 $ 448.00 |
|
Most critically, the opinion deems § 1715’s purpose illegitimate: it aims to suppress traffic in concealable firearms, particularly handguns, which Congress in 1927 viewed as non-protected and primarily criminal tools.
This directly conflicts with post-Heller jurisprudence affirming handguns as quintessential self-defense weapons. No historical tradition broadly supports prohibiting the shipment of protected arms among law-abiding citizens. Colonial-era restrictions on selling arms to Native Americans or exporting during wartime are distinguishable, as they addressed hostile threats or common defense, not private interstate commerce. Gunpowder storage laws, often cited as analogues, concerned explosive hazards, not unloaded firearms.
The opinion distinguishes rifles and shotguns (mailable under USPS rules) from handguns, noting the latter’s disfavor under USPS rules. It also clarifies limits: the ruling does not extend to non-protected items (e.g., privately manufactured firearms), require mailing ammunition (due to hazards with historical analogues), or mandate government parcel service altogether. But since the Postal Service operates one and allows handgun mailing for FFLs, it cannot discriminatorily ban private citizens.
Citing longstanding OLC precedent on executive authority to decline enforcing unconstitutional statutes, the opinion advises the DOJ to cease prosecutions under § 1715 for protected firearms and urges the Postal Service to revise Publication 52 accordingly. This follows principles such as presuming constitutionality where possible, considering the likelihood of Supreme Court agreement under Bruen, and avoiding undue chilling of rights pending litigation.
The opinion references an ongoing challenge, Shreve v. U.S. Postal Service (filed in July 2025 in Pennsylvania), in which plaintiffs, including Gun Owners of America (GOA), seek to enjoin § 1715. That case remains pending, but the OLC deems the rights infringement too imminent to await resolution.
This development could reshape firearm commerce and travel. Private citizens may soon mail handguns directly (subject to state laws and USPS safety rules), bypassing FFL transfers. It aligns with post-Bruen trends that expand the scope of the Second Amendment, which may influence other transportation restrictions. Proponents see it as restoring rights in a modern context in which private carriers’ policies have amplified an outdated ban.
As of January 2026, the law remains on the books, but the DOJ’s non-enforcement shifts practical reality. Congress could repeal or amend § 1715 (as proposed in bills like H.R. 3033), or courts may weigh in via Shreve. For now, this OLC opinion, binding within the executive, signals a bold executive reinterpretation of gun rights in the Bruen era.
NY Attorney General Letitia James Charging Florida Man with 71 Gun Crimes
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Wow now to remove it from the books
Opens a viable option for shipping to manufacturer for warranty work. I’ll take it!
one more leg broken out from under the rights grabbers
I still wouldn’t trust the USPS. They can barely get a package 200 miles without losing it.
This is an extremely deceptive headline. The Headline makes it sound like this is a court’s opinion. It is not. This is a memorandum from the entity that would enforce the statute, 18 USC 1715.
To get rid of this statute it takes an act of Congress and a signature of the president OR the USDOJ has to find a plaintiff; gin up a “case in controversy”; lose to that plaintiff; and finally get the court to declare 18 USC 1715 Unconstitutional.
Three decades ago I personally warned Marion Hammer of this lurking danger and asked her to get the NRA to lobby Congress to change the law and fight it in court. I don’t know if the NRA ever acted on my suggestion, but I’m glad to finally see some traction. While the DOJ is at, they should petition the Courts to strike down the bans and restrictions on interstate sale of firearms.
Back in the earIy 1960’s, my dad wouId order guns (both rifles and pistoIs) from Sears & Roebuck, and the mailman wouId deliver them and leave them in our maiIbox.
This is GREAT NEWS!!! Now, if we can just get the prohibition against carrying firearms on USPS property eliminated & get those stupid, retarded USPS electric delivery trucks scrapped, we will have hit the trifecta against the USPS, arguably the absolutely worst Gubment agency!!!
One more toxic imposition by the Progressive Movement bites the dust.
Did I misread the article? I read that USPS can no longer discriminate against private, unlicensed individuals — that because they’ll ship handguns from FFLs, they’ll have to accept shipments from the rest of us.
I could easily see USPS rewriting their regulations to ban all shipments of handguns. That way they would no longer discriminate between FFLs and the rest of us.
Never underestimate the ingenuity of antis to work around court rulings – often going directly against spirit of the ruling.