Handguns could soon be eligible for shipment through the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for the first time in nearly a century under a proposed rule advanced during the Trump administration, setting up a direct legal clash over whether federal agencies can reinterpret long-standing firearms restrictions without action from Congress.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has already staked out a central position in that fight, arguing in a formal legal opinion that the current restriction on mailing concealable firearms is unconstitutional.
Officials said the government cannot operate the postal system in a way that effectively blocks law-abiding citizens from shipping firearms they are otherwise legally allowed to possess, framing the issue as a constitutional limit on federal authority rather than a discretionary policy choice.
That interpretation prompted the USPS to draft a new rule allowing individuals to mail handguns such as pistols and revolvers under defined conditions.
While long guns like rifles and shotguns are already permitted for shipment if unloaded and properly packaged, the proposal would extend similar handling requirements to handguns for the first time.
USPS has said it is still reviewing public comments before deciding whether to finalize the rule, according to the Associated Press.
The practical impact of the proposal hinges on how it reshapes firearm transport across state lines. Under the draft framework, individuals could mail handguns in limited situations, including certain in-state transfers.
More restrictive conditions would apply to interstate movement, requiring the recipient to personally retrieve the firearm at the destination rather than allowing standard delivery.
Supporters argue the structure is designed to preserve accountability while removing logistical barriers for lawful gun owners.
What has made the proposal especially contentious is the legal and constitutional argument behind it.
DOJ officials have pointed to inconsistent state firearm laws that can make lawful transport difficult for activities such as hunting, sport shooting, and personal travel, arguing that federal restrictions should not override constitutional rights through administrative rulemaking.
That position has intensified scrutiny from states that rely on stricter transfer and tracking systems, according to USA Today.
Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) lobbying arm, have welcomed the proposal as a long-overdue correction to what they describe as outdated federal restrictions.
They argue that existing packaging and safety requirements already provide sufficient safeguards and that handgun shipping should not be treated differently from other firearms permitted under federal regulations.
On the other side, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general from roughly two dozen states has warned the proposal could weaken enforcement systems by removing licensed dealers from the transfer process.
In a joint letter, they argued that expanding direct mail-based firearm transfers would make it harder to prevent prohibited individuals from obtaining weapons and would complicate state-level oversight of gun transactions.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who helped lead the coalition, said the proposal would dismantle long-standing safeguards and shift enforcement burdens onto states already managing limited resources.
He also argued that federal agencies cannot effectively bypass a statute passed by Congress simply by reinterpreting it through regulation.
Private shipping companies such as UPS and FedEx currently maintain stricter policies than the proposed federal rule, limiting firearm shipments to federally licensed dealers, manufacturers, importers, and collectors.
Those companies, according to CBS News, also require additional approval steps before transport, highlighting the contrast between private-sector controls and the proposed federal approach.
Gun safety organizations, including Everytown for Gun Safety, have sharply criticized the proposal, warning it could expand opportunities for illegal trafficking by reducing oversight in firearm transfers.
They argue that removing licensed dealer involvement eliminates key checkpoints designed to prevent prohibited buyers from accessing weapons.
The dispute ultimately centers on a single unresolved question: whether the Postal Service has the authority to reinterpret a nearly century-old federal law through regulation or whether only Congress can make such a change.
With the public comment period now closed, USPS is reviewing feedback before deciding whether to proceed, a step that could set up a major legal challenge over executive authority and Second Amendment boundaries.
