USPS Rule Could Turbocharge Handgun Sales

July 4, 2026

Blue USPS mail collection boxes in a row.

A quiet postal rule change could turn every neighborhood mailbox into a doorway for handgun sales that never face a background check.

Story Snapshot

The Postal Service proposal would let many civilians mail handguns much like rifles and shotguns for the first time in nearly 100 years.
Critics say it opens a new path to get guns with no background check, weakens state gun laws, and hinders crime tracing.
Supporters say the old ban is unconstitutional, unfair to lawful gun owners, and that the rule simply treats handguns like other legal guns.
The fight highlights a deeper problem: major rules that reshape public safety are being driven by elites in Washington and industry, not by voters.

What the new handgun mailing rule would actually do

The United States Postal Service has proposed a rule that would, for the first time in almost a century, let ordinary people mail handguns through the mail, not just rifles and shotguns. The change follows a January opinion from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, which said the 1927 federal law that bans mailing concealable guns is unconstitutional as applied to common handguns. Under the draft rule, “lawful handguns” could be mailed under the same conditions that already apply to mailing long guns, such as being unloaded and properly packaged. Within a state, one private person could ship a handgun directly to another without using a licensed gun dealer in the middle, which is a major break from how handgun shipping has worked for decades.

Today, postal rules only allow handguns to move through the system when the sender and receiver fit narrow categories like law enforcement or licensed manufacturers and dealers, and even then only with sworn affidavits. Private carriers such as United Parcel Service and FedEx limit gun shipments to licensed dealers, so the Postal Service would become the only carrier that lets regular citizens send handguns to one another. The Department of Justice argues that because Congress chose to run a national parcel service, the Second Amendment means it cannot flatly refuse to ship lawful firearms for law-abiding citizens. Supporters say this simply ends “discrimination” against handgun owners and brings mail rules in line with modern gun rights decisions.

Why critics say the rule opens a dangerous loophole

Gun safety groups, many Democratic lawmakers, and at least twenty state attorneys general warn the rule could create a new “mail-order” path around background checks. Under federal law, background checks mainly apply when a sale goes through a licensed dealer, not when two private parties in the same state transfer a gun, unless state law closes that gap. Critics say letting private individuals mail handguns to each other in-state, without any dealer in the loop, makes it easier for someone who could not pass a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check to have a friend mail them a gun. Representative Haley Stevens, who introduced a bill to block the rule, argues it would “create new loopholes for illegal firearms” and undermine what is left of the background check system.

State officials also raise alarms about how the Postal Service would handle a patchwork of gun laws it does not enforce now. A multistate letter led by the Maryland attorney general argues the rule “recognizes no statutory obligation” for the Postal Service to ensure mailed guns obey each state’s limits on who can receive or possess a firearm. Groups like Brady United say postal workers are not trained to interpret complex gun statutes, yet the rule would place them on the front line of deciding whether a package is legal. They warn that more mail shipments of handguns will make it harder for police to trace crime guns, because more transfers will happen in the shadows of private deals instead of through licensed dealers who keep records. Critics stress that the administration has not offered hard data showing that expanding mail shipments will not fuel trafficking.

Why supporters call it a long-delayed Second Amendment fix

Gun rights advocates and many conservatives see the Postal Service proposal as a long overdue correction of what they view as a nearly 100-year mistake. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion says the 1927 mailing ban places a “substantial burden” on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms by cutting off a basic shipping option for lawful handguns. The memo concludes the government may not enforce that ban against “constitutionally protected firearms,” and urges the Postal Service to update its rules accordingly. Groups such as the National Rifle Association describe the change as restoring a “long-denied right” and argue that the Second Amendment “doesn’t stop at the post office.” Supporters add that the rule does not erase existing laws: the Gun Control Act of 1968 and state regulations on who may receive a handgun would still apply, and cross‑state transfers between unlicensed people would still need to go through a dealer in the buyer’s state.

Backers also highlight practical benefits for regular gun owners who feel boxed in by today’s shipping rules. They say current limits force people to make long drives or pay high fees just to send a handgun for repair, training, or lawful hunting and sport shooting trips. The Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives state that the goal is “simpler, clearer regulations” that do not weaken efforts to fight violent crime. Some officials even point to “economic benefit” for the struggling Postal Service if it can collect more revenue from firearm shipments. To many on the right, especially after years of what they see as “woke” corporate policies, giving the government-run mail the same role as private carriers in lawful gun commerce feels like basic fairness.

Where both left and right see the same deeper problem

Behind the legal talk, this fight taps into a broader anger that both conservatives and liberals share about how Washington works. A near‑century‑old law that Congress never repealed is being treated as a “dead letter” because a handful of lawyers in the Department of Justice decided it is unconstitutional, and the Postal Service quietly moved to fall in line. For many Americans, that looks like the permanent government — lawyers, regulators, and lobbyists — making huge public safety choices with little real debate in Congress or input from everyday people. On one side, gun owners see courts and agencies as the only way to claw back rights that lawmakers ignored. On the other side, families worried about gun violence see the same agencies bending to pressure from the gun lobby and companies that profit when it gets easier to ship and sell weapons. Both sides can agree on this much: big, complex rules that can change who gets guns and how they move around the country should not be decided in back rooms in Washington, while regular citizens are left to argue over the fallout at their kitchen tables and in their neighborhoods.

As this rule moves toward a final decision, the real question is less “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” and more about power and accountability. Does a legal memo plus a postal regulation change the basic deal between citizens and their government, without any direct vote by the people’s representatives? Many Americans on the left and right already feel shut out while insiders in both parties take care of their donors and favored industries first. The handgun mailing fight is one more sign of a system where those at the top rewrite the rules, while everyone else is left to live with the risks.