A recent federal ruling stated that prohibiting carry in some United States Postal Service properties is unconstitutional. The DOJ, though, has clapped back, seeking limitations on the ruling. Now the plaintiffs have responded.
Firearms Policy Coalition v. Bondi has been getting a lot of attention. The U.S. Government snapped back with a brief after a federal district court judge found portions of the law were unconstitutional. Relief was granted to the organizational members of Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. FPC and SAF filed a reply brief on November 18, 2025 in opposition to the government’s request to limit relief.
“In this case, two national membership organizations that work to promote and defend the rights protected by the Second Amendment established that the federal ban on carrying firearms in post offices and on post office property is unconstitutional,” the brief states. “Now the Government, in a bid to render that victory practically meaningless for all the members of those organizations except for the two who participated in this suit directly, seeks to narrow the scope of the injunctive relief this Court has ordered to exclude from coverage anyone whom the organizations have not identified to the Government as a member and anyone who was not a member at the time the complaint was filed.”
The topic of nationwide injunctive relief has been contentious during the Trump administration. On one hand, the president has been hobbled in being able to fulfill his campaign promises — whatever means that may include — with district courts issuing nationwide injunctions against every move President Trump makes. On the other, in challenging the practice, President Trump (via Trump v. CASA) has tried to severely limit how plaintiffs are treated at the district levels of federal court and who gets relief.
Making matters worse, the government continues to request those same limitations on the scope of injunctive relief in cases that deal with the Second Amendment. The administration certainly can’t be accused of playing favorites, as there seems to be hardly a federal law they haven’t tried to defend and/or limit relief of to the aggrieved.
“The critical thing to remember here is that the government is fighting tooth and nail to continue enforcing an unconstitutional law against as many people as possible,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said in a statement. “The DOJ’s position that it would be ‘impossible’ for it to know who was protected by the injunction without a membership list is just plain silly. If officials want to know if someone found to be carrying at a post office is a SAF member they can simply ask.”
The Foundation, as well as Firearms Policy Coalition, both issue membership credentials to their members. This is something FPC recently vamped for their supporters and is a practice that SAF has been engaged in for years. Sources said that there has been an uptick in requests for membership cards at SAF due to these rulings limiting relief to organizational plaintiffs.
“The Government’s motion in this case is of a piece with its broader strategy, that has become apparent in the wake of CASA, to further restrict the remedial powers of the district court,” the brief notes.
Something missing from the filing is that in CASA, it does note that the injunctions being limited were on an interlocutory basis. The order in CASA states: “The Government’s applications to partially stay the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
“When we file a case, we do so on behalf of all SAF members,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The carry ban on U.S. Post Office property affects countless peaceable citizens nationwide who visit post offices every day to conduct their business. A Federal District Judge has declared the law unconstitutional, and yet the government’s knee-jerk reaction is to continue enforcing it against as many Americans as possible. Decades of settled case law says that it’s wrong.”
Firearms Policy Coalition has been ringing the bell on the Trump Administration's moves to limit organizational plaintiffs’ level of relief. FPC pointed out troubling language that was originally in the "Big Beautiful Bill" which they say would have had devastating implications for the Second Amendment movement. That language would have pigeonholed organizations into only being able to file class-action lawsuits. The Coalition has continued to chastise and shed light on any freedom-limiting moves the administration has made.
“President Trump’s DOJ is again using tyrannical legal tactics to gut a major constitutional victory and continue enforcing federal gun control laws—even those already declared unconstitutional by federal courts,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “Instead of complying with the court’s order in this case, the Trump DOJ is spending time and money to keep people disarmed and defenseless. The Trump DOJ must stop wasting taxpayer money defending illegal gun control laws and start honoring the Bill of Rights—and their promise to protect the Second Amendment rights of the American people.”
In response to the September 30 ruling, the USPS has been rather muted on the topic. When asked for comment about the case, a spokesperson for the Postal Service indicated that they were aware of the ruling and they are not issuing out any official guidance.
A leaked memo from an alleged USPS clerk outlined the Postal Service’s stance on how workers should handle those they suspect are armed on post office grounds. Bearing Arms authenticated the validity of that memo and a spokesperson said, “USPS confirms that the Service Talk is an internal employee document and refers back to its previous statement for request of any additional comment.”
At this level, the best case scenario is that all organizational members of FPC and SAF will be covered by the injunction regardless of when they became a member. The worst case scenario is that the district court acquiesces to the government’s request that the relief is limited to two individuals and two individuals alone. Will all card-carrying members of FPC and SAF be covered? We’ll eventually find out. That’ll leave the question of when does the rest of the population get such rights returned to them?
Editor's Note: Second Amendment advocates are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their legal and legislative efforts.. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member