Our state has suffered enough, and to suggest we make it easier for criminals
For nearly a century, the United States Postal Service has carried nearly everything except handguns — a prohibition rooted in a 1927 law that the Trump administration now calls unconstitutional. In April 2026, the USPS proposed reversing that century-old barrier, allowing pistols and revolvers to move through the mail under the same packaging rules that govern rifles and shotguns. The proposal arrives at a moment of deep national tension over gun rights and public safety, pitting a federal Second Amendment argument against the carefully constructed gun laws of two dozen states. What is being decided is not merely a postal regulation, but a question about whether federal infrastructure can be made to carry the weight of a contested constitutional right.
- A proposed USPS rule would shatter a 98-year prohibition on mailing handguns, framing the change as a Second Amendment correction long overdue — and igniting an immediate political firestorm.
- Democratic attorneys general from roughly two dozen states warn the rule would gut background check systems, render state gun laws unenforceable, and hand criminals a federally sanctioned shipping lane for illegal firearms.
- Nevada's attorney general invoked the 2017 Las Vegas massacre — 60 lives lost — as a reminder of what is at stake when gun transfer safeguards are weakened, calling the proposal a betrayal of survivors.
- Gun rights advocates counter that the rule simply levels the playing field between handguns and long guns, giving law-abiding citizens a practical way to transport firearms across state lines without navigating a hostile patchwork of laws.
- The public comment period closed May 4th, and the USPS is now weighing its decision — one that could either reshape interstate gun commerce or be blocked by legal challenges from the states opposing it.
For nearly a century, federal law has kept handguns out of the United States mail. That prohibition, born in 1927, may now be coming to an end. In January, the Trump administration's Justice Department declared the law unconstitutional, arguing it violated Second Amendment protections. By April, the USPS had drafted a rule that would allow anyone to mail pistols and revolvers — unloaded and securely packaged — under the same conditions already applied to rifles and shotguns.
The administration's legal logic is direct: if the federal government operates a mail service, the Second Amendment bars it from refusing to ship firearms to law-abiding citizens. Officials argue that inconsistent state gun laws make crossing state lines with a firearm impractical for hunters, sport shooters, and those seeking self-defense — and that mail is often the only realistic option.
The proposal drew swift and organized resistance. Democratic attorneys general from roughly two dozen states submitted a joint letter of opposition before the comment period closed on May 4th. Their core concern: the rule would allow handguns to change hands without passing through the federal firearms licensing system, bypassing the background checks that licensed dealers are required to conduct. Without that gatekeeping function, they argue, there is no reliable way to confirm that either the sender or recipient is legally permitted to handle a firearm.
Nevada's Attorney General Aaron Ford put a human face on the opposition. His state passed a background check law in the aftermath of the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas shooting — the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, which killed 60 people at a concert outside the Mandalay Bay hotel. Ford called the USPS proposal a direct betrayal of that law and of the survivors it was meant to protect.
The attorneys general also raised enforcement concerns: state gun laws requiring safety training, mental health screenings, and background searches would become effectively unenforceable if handguns could bypass those systems through the mail. Tracking firearms moving through the postal network would require new infrastructure and new budget commitments from states already stretched thin.
The divide between gun rights and gun safety advocates is absolute. The NRA's lobbying arm called the rule a commonsense victory for law-abiding owners. Everytown for Gun Safety called it a blueprint for turning the postal service into a gun trafficking pipeline. Private carriers like UPS and FedEx already restrict gun shipments to federally licensed dealers — the USPS proposal would create a public alternative with far fewer restrictions.
The postal service is now reviewing public feedback. The Justice Department's constitutional framing will likely shape whatever decision follows — and that decision will determine whether Americans can mail handguns across state lines for the first time since the 1920s, and whether state-level gun protections can hold in an era of shifting federal priorities.
For nearly a century, the United States Postal Service has been forbidden from carrying handguns through the mail. That barrier is now under assault. In January, the Trump administration's Department of Justice declared the 1927 law that created this prohibition unconstitutional, arguing it violated Second Amendment protections. By April, the USPS had drafted a new rule that would reverse nearly 100 years of policy and allow anyone to mail pistols and revolvers, provided they were unloaded and securely packaged—the same safety standards already applied to rifles and shotguns.
The legal argument from the Justice Department is straightforward: if Congress insists on operating a mail service, the Second Amendment prevents it from refusing to ship firearms to law-abiding citizens who are not licensed dealers. The department contends that the patchwork of state gun laws makes interstate travel with firearms impractical for lawful purposes like hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. In many cases, the administration argues, mail becomes the only viable way to transport a gun across state lines.
But the proposal has triggered fierce resistance from state governments. Democratic attorneys general representing roughly two dozen states submitted a letter of opposition as the public comment period was closing on May 4th. Their concerns are structural and practical. They argue the rule would create a mechanism for gun transfers that bypasses the federal firearms licensing system entirely. Licensed dealers currently shoulder the burden of conducting background checks and verifying that buyers are legally permitted to own weapons. A mail-based system for handguns would eliminate that gatekeeping function. There would be no way, the attorneys general contend, to ensure that someone mailing a handgun across state lines is not violating the law or the recipient's eligibility to own a firearm.
Nevada's Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat running for governor, framed the issue through the lens of his state's trauma. On October 1, 2017, a gunman fired from the Mandalay Bay casino hotel in Las Vegas, killing 60 people in the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. Nevada responded by enacting a law requiring background checks on most private gun sales and transfers. Ford called the proposed USPS rule a betrayal of that effort and of survivors. "Our state has suffered enough," he said, "and to suggest we make it easier for criminals and abusers to access firearms is a slap in the face to gun violence survivors and law enforcement."
The attorneys general raised a second concern: enforcement. State gun laws include requirements for safety courses, background searches, and mental health history checks—all administered through state systems. If handguns can be mailed without passing through those state-regulated channels, the attorneys general argue, those protections become meaningless. Law enforcement would need to build new tracking infrastructure to monitor firearms moving through the postal system, placing additional burdens on state budgets. They also contend that the executive branch lacks the authority to overturn a law Congress passed, and that the rule would effectively override state gun laws.
Private shipping companies have taken a different approach. Both UPS and FedEx restrict gun shipments to customers with federal firearms licenses—importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors. FedEx requires licensed shippers to work with a company account executive to obtain approval. The USPS proposal would create a public alternative to these private restrictions.
The divide between gun rights and gun safety advocates is stark. John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's lobbying arm, called the proposed rule a key victory for law-abiding gun owners, crediting President Trump and his administration for finally allowing handguns to be shipped under the same safety conditions as long guns. John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, saw something entirely different: a rule that would transform the postal service into a "gun trafficking pipeline" for illegal weapons while stripping law enforcement of essential investigative tools.
The USPS has closed its public comment period and is now reviewing the feedback it received. The decision on whether to finalize the rule rests with the postal service, though the Justice Department's constitutional argument will likely shape the outcome. What happens next will determine whether Americans can mail handguns across state lines for the first time since the Roaring Twenties—and whether state gun laws can survive in an era when federal policy moves in the opposite direction.
Citas Notables
Thanks to President Trump and his administration, USPS will finally allow these firearms to be shipped under the same commonsense safety conditions as rifles and shotguns.— John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's lobbying arm
The rule change will turn USPS into a gun trafficking pipeline for illegal weapons while stripping law enforcement of the tools they need to prevent and investigate gun crime.— John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the Justice Department decide to challenge a law that's been in place for nearly a hundred years?
They're arguing that Congress can't run a mail service and simultaneously restrict what can be mailed based on the Second Amendment. It's a constitutional claim, not a practical one. They say if the USPS exists, it has to treat firearms like any other lawful product.
But there's a difference between a rifle and a handgun, isn't there? The law has allowed rifles through the mail for years.
Exactly. That's what makes this so pointed. The USPS already ships long guns safely. The administration is saying there's no constitutional reason to treat concealable firearms differently. The states counter that handguns are easier to conceal, easier to traffic illegally, and that's precisely why the 1927 law singled them out.
What's the practical fear here? What actually changes if this rule goes through?
Someone in Nevada could sell a handgun to someone in California and mail it directly, bypassing the licensed dealer system entirely. No background check, no verification that the buyer is legally allowed to own a gun. The states say that's how felons and domestic abusers get weapons. The gun rights groups say law-abiding people just want to travel with their firearms without hassle.
Is there any middle ground here?
Not really visible yet. The states want the rule withdrawn entirely. The administration has already made its constitutional argument. The USPS is caught between a Justice Department order and state attorneys general threatening legal action. Someone has to give.
Why does Nevada's attorney general keep bringing up the 2017 shooting?
Because it's not abstract to him. His state lost 60 people and responded by tightening gun laws. Now the federal government is moving in the opposite direction. It feels like the work his state did is being undone by Washington.