“Such a law does not apply to rifles or shotguns. It targets handguns, maybe the ‘quintessential self-defense weapon’, for unique prohibition.” That’s constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, and his words are rippling as a near-century-old federal firearms statute is tested in court for the first time in 2025.
For legitimate gun owners, it can be a life-changer. The case against the United States Postal Service is not one of mailing handguns, but whether Prohibition-era law applies in the modern United States. That’s what’s at stake, why it matters, and this case may impact your rights in ways you never thought possible.
1. The 1927 USPS Handgun Ban: A Law Out of Sync With Today
The federal prohibition on mailing handguns 18 U.S.C. § 1715 is nearly a century old, dating to 1927. Agencies of the federal government and licensed dealers may mail handguns. Ordinary Americans, on the other hand, face federal criminal prosecution for doing so. Gun Owners of America dubs this a classic case of a “rule for me, but not for thee” double standard. USP sends guns to police and FFLs regularly but won’t allow an average citizen to ship a legally purchased handgun to a friend or relative.
According to GOA, this special carve-out is not only archaic but also discriminatory. As Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America Erich Pratt stated, “This complaint demonstrates that the federal government’s Prohibition-era ban on mailing handguns is a Second Amendment infringement.” The lawsuit does reveal how out-of-date statutes can create new headaches for law-abiding gun owners.
2. The Second Amendment and the “Text, History, and Tradition” Test
The 2022 Supreme Court Bruen decision upended the entire legal world over the right to guns. Any regulation of any gun has to pass muster under the originalist interpretation of the historical tradition of gun law as of 1791. Mark Smith demonstrates that there hadn’t been a federal prohibition against mailing handguns until 1927. He points out, “You can’t call something a ‘historical tradition’ if it didn’t exist until the 20th century.”
In other words, the government needs to demonstrate that its ban on mailing handguns is consistent with America’s gun-control heritage. If it can’t make that showing, the law may fall. As legal scholars and court-watchers around the country wait anxiously to see what happens, the case has the potential to make clear just how broadly the Bruen test applies-and whether other long-standing gun laws are at risk.
3. Why Handguns Get Special Treatment (and Why That Matters)
Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are singled out for special restriction under the USPS prohibition. This makes no sense, according to critics, since handguns are the most common means of self-defense. Mark Smith decries this distinction as not only nonsensical, but dangerous: “By discouraging legal ways of shipping firearms, the law may even induce people to go through private, unregulated ways of shipping, or worse still, to violate the law without realizing it.”
For those who already own a gun, this is no technicality. It’s a real-life obstacle for which people may resort to questionable or even illegal methods, all in the name of practicing a constitutional right. The lawsuit asks: why must the most commonly used tool of self-defense be held to the strictest mailing limitations?
4. The Power of Real Stories: Bonita Shreve’s Stand
In some instances, the strongest law cases begin with an ordinary citizen. Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve wishes to ship a legally-owned handgun to her father, whom lives three hours away. She cannot get there herself, but shipping the gun would turn her into a federal felon under current law.
Her story is an example of the ridiculousness of the law: she is doing nothing of the sort-other than using the mail to transfer property between two legal citizens-nothing wrong with her state; she’s not selling guns. Instead, a reminder that it is flesh-and-blood human beings, not legal abstraction, that arbitrary rules impact.
5. The USPS Is Not Above the Constitution
The United States Postal Service is a federal agency, and that’s one reason it has to respect the Constitution like the Second Amendment. Mark Smith remarks, “This isn’t some private delivery company. The USPS testifies in front of Congress, it operates under federal authority, and its policies must comply with the Constitution.”
The lawsuit argues that the right to keep and bear arms also extends to the right to purchase and ship them. The question would be: is that constitutional if the USPS can mail guns to some, but not all, Americans? The case has the potential to force the courts to create new limits on what federal agencies can and cannot do with regard to gun rights.
6. DOJ’s Next Move: Defend or Fold?
With the Department of Justice now having a new chief, everyone is waiting for what the government will do. Mark Smith speculates that it could place the DOJ in conflict with where the Supreme Court stands currently. “Any previous cases arguing the case for this prohibition have been premised on antiquated interest-balancing tests,” says Smith. “No longer permissible under Bruen.”
If the DOJ decides to fight, it might result in a massive showdown in court. But if they won’t stand up for the law, it might signal that federal agencies are modifying their approach to Second Amendment rights. Either scenario could have ripple effects for gun owners across the country.
7. What’s at Stake: Ending the “Gun Owner Class System”
In simplest terms, this is a case of equal rights for all law-abiding Americans. GOA’s Erich Pratt elaborates, “We are committed to stopping all anti-gun ‘rules for me, but not for thee.'” The case calls out the notion that only government agencies and licensed sellers merit special attention.
If the courts concur, the 1927 prohibition might once have been consigned to the dustbin of history, adding parity to gun owners throughout America. With litigation of gun laws being waged hotly, however, the case is a reminder that the battle for Second Amendment protections is far from won and that even the oldest of laws can be overturned when they are out of date.
This case is not so much about mailing a handgun you know, sending a handgun through the mail it’s about justice, legacy, and the future of gun rights in America. As judges consider whether to uphold a nearly century-old law that is still relevant today, gun owners and groups are holding their breath. The decision could establish new norms for what it will mean to be a compliant gun owner in 2025 and beyond.
