Anti-Gun States Rush to Defend Federal Gun Mailing Ban After DOJ Refuses
- Austin Reville
- 6 hours ago
- 4 min read
Just over a year ago, gun owners across the country felt like they were under siege. The previous administration’s aggressive gun control agenda pushed restrictions at nearly every level of government. Today, the landscape looks very different—and anti-gun politicians are scrambling to adjust.
A new legal battle is unfolding over a federal law that restricts mailing certain firearms through the United States Postal Service, and the developments highlight just how dramatically the political and legal climate has shifted.
States Step In After Federal Government Backs Away
Last week, the attorneys general of Delaware, New York, and New Jersey asked a federal court for permission to intervene in a lawsuit defending an old federal firearm restriction. Their move came after the United States Department of Justice declined to defend the law itself, concluding that it likely violates the Second Amendment.
At issue is 18 U.S.C. § 1715, which prohibits the USPS from shipping handguns and other concealable firearms through the mail, with only limited exceptions. Under the statute:
Pistols, revolvers, and other concealable firearms are considered non-mailable
Violations can carry fines or up to two years in prison
The restriction applies only to the USPS—not private carriers like FedEx or UPS
The Lawsuit Challenging the Ban
The law is being challenged in Shreve v. USPS, currently before a federal court. Plaintiffs argue that the law—originally passed during the Prohibition era—is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Their argument is straightforward: the federal government has operated a postal service since the Founding era, yet there is no historical tradition of banning the mailing of firearms between law-abiding citizens.
In fact, the USPS itself traces its origins to 1775, during the American Revolution. Critics of the law say that if the Founders believed mailing firearms threatened public safety, they would have addressed it centuries ago.
DOJ Says the Law Is Likely Unconstitutional
In January, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion stating that the statute likely cannot survive modern Second Amendment scrutiny. According to the DOJ analysis:
Handguns fall squarely within the core protections of the Second Amendment
The mailing ban is intended to suppress commerce in constitutionally protected arms
There are no historical analogues supporting such a restriction
The DOJ concluded that as long as Congress operates a national parcel service, the government cannot deny law-abiding citizens the ability to ship constitutionally protected firearms. As a result, the department indicated it should cease enforcing the law against protected firearms and begin revising USPS regulations.
Anti-Gun States Attempt to Save the Law
That decision triggered a swift reaction from anti-gun state officials. The attorneys general of Delaware, New York, and New Jersey filed motions asking the court to intervene in the case and defend the statute themselves. They also requested summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit entirely.
Their public statements relied on familiar gun-control talking points—references to “illegal guns,” “loopholes,” and “commonsense gun safety.” Letitia James claimed removing the restriction would force states to spend resources investigating firearms shipped through the mail.
Meanwhile, Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings went further, accusing the administration of siding with the gun lobby and arguing that eliminating the mailing restriction would be dangerous.
What Happens Next
The court must now decide whether to allow the states to intervene in the case. Even if the motion is granted, the federal government’s position that the law is unconstitutional significantly weakens the defense. For gun owners, the DOJ’s refusal to defend a questionable restriction represents a major shift from the previous federal posture toward gun policy.
Why This Matters
The broader takeaway is clear: the fight over the Second Amendment is no longer confined to legislatures. Increasingly, it is playing out in the courts. Anti-gun states are now attempting to preserve restrictions even when the federal government itself acknowledges constitutional problems.
At 2 If By Sea Tactical, we believe the Constitution should not change depending on which political party holds power. It also should not matter if you are in Minnesota like us, or elswhere in the United States. The Second Amendment is not a privilege granted by government—it is a fundamental right that must be defended wherever it is challenged. As cases like Shreve v. USPS move through the courts, the outcome could have lasting implications. It will change how Americans buy, sell, and legally transfer firearms across the country.
Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world. As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.
Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.
Comments