Federal Judge Rules Post Office Gun Ban Unconstitutional — But Not for Everyone

The Case and the Ruling

On or about late September 2025, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas held that the government’s blanket ban on firearms at ordinary, customer-facing post offices is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs included the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and a few individual named gun owners. The court granted summary judgment and enjoined enforcement of the ban as to those plaintiffs.

The challenge targeted both the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and the USPS regulation 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). Relying on the Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen standard, the court concluded the government failed to demonstrate a consistent historical tradition supporting a universal prohibition on carrying firearms in ordinary post offices.

Why the Court Rejected the Ban

The government argued that post offices should be treated as “sensitive places,” akin to courthouses or schools. But the court found no sufficiently analogous founding-era history justifying a broad ban in ordinary postal lobbies and parking lots open to the general public. Under Bruen, when the history isn’t there, modern blanket prohibitions can’t stand—at least not without tighter tailoring or truly sensitive circumstances.

Part of a Larger Trend

This ruling doesn’t come out of nowhere. In United States v. Ayala, a Florida federal judge ruled earlier this year that applying the same law to a postal worker was unconstitutional. The Department of Justice later dismissed its appeal in that case—an early signal that even the federal government may be realizing this ban won’t hold up.

What This Means for You

For now, nothing changes for most Americans. This ruling applies only to:

• The individual plaintiffs named in the case; and
• Members of FPC and SAF, because those organizations are plaintiffs.

If you’re not personally covered by the injunction—meaning you’re neither a named plaintiff nor a current member of those plaintiff organizations—you can still be charged for carrying a firearm in a post office or on postal property. The federal statute and USPS regulation remain in effect for everyone else unless and until broader relief is issued on appeal, additional courts extend these holdings, or Congress changes the law.

Our Take

This is a big win—measured but meaningful. The court followed the Constitution’s text and history and rejected a sweeping prohibition that treated every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal for walking into a post office. But because the ruling is as-applied and plaintiff-bound, the smart, legally conservative move for most carriers is to stay the course until there’s clear, general relief.

The writing is on the wall 🙂

Stay Informed & Train Smart

We’ll keep tracking this. In the meantime, sharpen your legal literacy and preparedness with our resources:

• ConcealedCarry.com / Law & Policy Guides
• American Gun Law (included with our trial membership)