Since 1927, it's been illegal for gun owners to ship “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person” through the U.S. Postal Service. The USPS is considering a change to that policy, however, after the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an advisory opinion that found the statute in conflict with the Second Amendment.
Nearly two dozen anti-2A AGs have submitted comments in opposition to the rule, claiming that it could fuel illegal gun trafficking and a rise in violent crime.
The U.S. Postal Service should not be used as a loophole for criminals to bypass Michigan law and flood our streets with untraceable firearms.https://t.co/mgQQPivs2Q
— Dana Nessel (@dananessel) May 7, 2026
As I asked the AG on X, since its already legal to ship long guns through the mail, is there any evidence that criminals are using that as a "loophole?"
I don't expect a reply, but that's all right. I already know the answer, and it's a big, fat "negatory, good buddy."
In their letter, the AGs, led by New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, claim that the proposed rule is unlawful because "the Executive lacks authority to unilaterally invalidate a federal statute and sanction conduct that Congress has prohibited." The OLC opinion doesn't touch on that argument. Instead, it ruled that the DOJ should stop prosecuting violations of the statute since its in conflict with the Second Amendment.
That argument is the best one the AGs offer. If the executive branch can unilaterally repeal a law passed by Congress, what would stop an anti-gun president from trying to enact a law without congressional authority, or simply try to repeal portions of the Firearms Owners Protection Act or One Big Beautiful Bill Act that benefit gun owners?
If the anti-gun AGs had stopped there, they would have been better off. Instead, though, they also claim that the rule "threatens to make the U.S. mail 'an instrumentality for the violation of local laws which prohibited the purchase and possession of weapons.'”
That is, without question, an idiotic argument. If local laws prohibit the purchase and possession of certain firearms, then whether or not their mailed to someone in that locality or brought to them via horse and carriage doesn't matter. Possession is still illegal.
The language used by the AGs appears to come from a 1925 letter by the Postmaster General to Congress that complained "[i]n many jurisdictions [the mailability of guns] operates to defeat local laws and regulations prohibiting the purchase and possession of such articles."
A lot has changed since then, including the Supreme Court's decision in Heller that made it clear that bans on pistols and revolvers violate the Second Amendment. Any local law or regulation prohibiting the purchase and possession of those items, then, is patently unconstitutional and should be of no concern whatsoever to the USPS.
That still leaves "other firearms capable of being concealed on a person," like short-barreled rifles or shotguns. The proposed rule, however, doesn't include those items. Instead, it simply adds "handguns" to the rifles and shotguns that are already allowed to be shipped via the USPS.
The anti-gun AGs claim that the proposed rule "would newly allow for weapons to be sent directly to unlicensed persons or persons who could not pass a federal or state background check, resulting in an increased number of prohibited persons obtaining firearms." Well, no. The rule wouldn't allow for that, because it would still be illegal to give a prohibited person a firearm. And again, the USPS already allows for non-concealable firearms to be shipped via the mail to non-FFLs. If there is any evidence whatsoever that gun traffickers are using the current rule to ship guns to criminals, the attorneys general fail to present it in their public comment.
Among the bevy of specious arguments presented by Davenport and her cohorts is the claim that the rule would allow for some guns classified as "assault weapons" to be shipped via the mail. Again, the current rules already allow for the shipment of long guns, but both the current and proposed rule declare that "mailers must comply with the rules and regulations per 27 CFR, Part 478, as well as state and local laws." If a particular gun is illegal to possess in a state, it's also illegal to mail that gun to or within the state. That's pretty simple to follow, yet the anti-gun AGs seem incapable of basic reading comprehension.
One last note: Davenport and the other anti-2A AGs who signed on to her letter don't mention anything about Shreve v. USPS, which is a challenge to the very rule the USPS is proposing to change. Some of these same attorneys general are actually trying to intervene in the lawsuit and defend the statute after the DOJ declined to do so. They know darn well that the ban on shipping handguns through the mail is going down one way or another, but they're fighting tooth and nail to keep it in place for as long as possible even though they can identify no issues with the fact that long guns can already be shipped. There is no reason for them to fight to keep this restriction in place, other than the fact that changing the rule would benefit lawful gun owners. That is their real problem with what USPS is proposing. It's not about fighting crime. It's about diminishing our right to keep and bear arms whenever and wherever they can.
