Trump Administration Proposes Historic Change to Gun Mailing Rules

A Century-Old Law Under Review

For nearly a hundred years, Americans have been prohibited from mailing handguns through the United States Postal Service—but that could soon change under a controversial new proposal from the Trump administration. The potential policy shift has ignited fierce debate between Second Amendment advocates and gun safety proponents, with Democratic attorneys general from approximately two dozen states voicing strong opposition to the plan. The controversy centers on a 1927 congressional law that banned the USPS from delivering concealable firearms except when shipped by licensed dealers, a measure originally designed to combat rising crime rates during the Prohibition era. Now, the Department of Justice has challenged this long-standing regulation, claiming it violates constitutional rights and unfairly restricts law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment freedoms.

In January, the Justice Department took the extraordinary step of declaring the 1927 law unconstitutional, arguing that it imposes unreasonable restrictions on Americans’ right to bear arms. According to the department’s legal reasoning, if Congress chooses to operate a parcel delivery service available to the general public, the Second Amendment prevents it from refusing to ship legally protected firearms to and from citizens who aren’t breaking any laws, regardless of whether they hold federal firearms licenses as manufacturers or dealers. This interpretation represents a significant departure from nearly a century of postal policy and has set the stage for what could become one of the most consequential changes to gun regulations in modern American history. Following the Justice Department’s opinion, the USPS proposed new regulations in April that would permit anyone to mail concealable firearms like pistols and revolvers through the postal system, subject to certain safety requirements similar to those already in place for long-barreled rifles and shotguns.

How the New Rules Would Work

Under the proposed regulations, handguns would need to be unloaded and securely packaged before mailing, mirroring the requirements currently applied to rifles and shotguns that can already be sent through USPS. The rules establish different protocols depending on whether guns are being shipped within a state or across state lines. For intrastate shipments, individuals would be allowed to sell and ship firearms to other people within their own state’s borders. However, interstate mailing comes with tighter restrictions—people could only mail guns to themselves in care of another person at the destination, and they would be legally required to be the ones to open the package. This provision is specifically designed to accommodate travelers who want to transport their firearms to another state for lawful recreational purposes such as hunting, target shooting, or personal protection while traveling.

The Justice Department has defended these rules by pointing to the complicated patchwork of varying state gun laws that make it challenging for gun owners to transport their weapons across state lines for legitimate purposes. In their argument, department officials contend that in many situations, citizens have no practical ability to travel with their firearms using conventional methods, making mail service the “only viable method of transportation” for their constitutionally protected property. The public comment period for the proposed rule closed in early May, and according to USPS spokesperson David Walton, the postal service is currently reviewing the feedback received from citizens, advocacy groups, and government officials on both sides of the debate.

Strong Opposition from State Leaders

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat currently running for governor, has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the proposed rule change, arguing it would undermine years of progress his state and others have made in reducing gun violence. Ford’s opposition carries particular weight given Nevada’s tragic history with gun violence—the state was the site of the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history when a gunman opened fire from the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, killing 60 innocent people and wounding hundreds more. In response to that horrific tragedy, Nevada enacted legislation requiring state-administered background checks for most private gun sales and transfers, a measure designed to close loopholes that could allow dangerous individuals to obtain weapons.

“Our state has suffered enough, and to suggest we make it easier for criminals and abusers to access firearms is a slap in the face to gun violence survivors and law enforcement,” Ford stated emphatically. His concerns are shared by attorneys general from roughly two dozen states who collectively sent a letter to USPS urging the withdrawal of the proposed rule. These state officials argue that the new regulations would make it substantially easier for people legally prohibited from possessing firearms—including convicted felons and those with domestic violence convictions—to obtain guns by circumventing existing safeguards. They also contend that the rule would complicate law enforcement efforts to solve gun-related crimes by creating a new, difficult-to-monitor channel for firearms distribution.

The attorneys general further argue that the executive branch is overstepping its authority by essentially ignoring a law properly enacted by Congress, and that implementing this rule would override carefully crafted state gun laws designed to protect public safety. Many states have implemented their own requirements for gun ownership and transfer, including mandatory firearms safety courses, comprehensive background checks, and mental health history screenings. These requirements are typically administered and enforced through state regulatory agencies. The attorneys general contend that allowing handguns to be mailed would bypass these state-level protections entirely, creating a significant gap in the regulatory framework. They express concern that there would be no effective way to verify that individuals are following the rules and not illegally shipping handguns across state lines to prohibited persons, potentially creating a black market pipeline that would be extremely difficult for authorities to monitor or control.

Law Enforcement and Budget Concerns

Beyond the immediate safety concerns, state officials warn that the proposed rule change would impose significant new burdens on law enforcement agencies and state budgets. Police departments and state agencies would need to develop entirely new tracking systems and investigative procedures to account for firearms being distributed through the postal service, resources that many jurisdictions simply don’t have available in their current budgets. The attorneys general emphasize in their letter that the proposed rule would harm states by “providing a readily-accessible mechanism for transfers of firearms that bypass” the system of federal firearms licenses that currently serves as a critical checkpoint in gun distribution.

Under the current system, federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) shoulder the responsibility of confirming that every gun transfer complies with both state and federal law. This includes conducting mandatory background checks on every purchaser and verifying that state law permits that specific individual to own the particular type of weapon being transferred. This licensing system creates a paper trail and accountability structure that law enforcement relies on when investigating gun crimes. Private shipping companies like UPS and FedEx have adopted similar restrictions, limiting gun shipments to customers who hold federal firearms licenses such as importers, manufacturers, dealers, and collectors. FedEx even requires shippers with federal firearms licenses to work directly with a FedEx account executive to obtain special approval before sending firearms through their network, demonstrating the private sector’s recognition of the serious responsibilities involved in firearms transportation.

Divided Reactions from Advocacy Groups

The proposed rule change has predictably drawn sharply contrasting reactions from firearms advocacy organizations and gun safety groups, reflecting the deep divide in American society over gun policy. John Commerford, executive director of the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association of America, celebrated the proposal as a significant victory for responsible gun owners who have been unfairly restricted in their ability to transport their legally owned property. “Thanks to President Trump and his administration, USPS will finally allow these firearms to be shipped under the same commonsense safety conditions as rifles and shotguns,” Commerford stated, framing the change as simply extending existing protections rather than creating new risks.

On the opposite side, gun safety organizations have sounded alarms about the potential consequences of the policy change. John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, offered a starkly different perspective, warning that the rule change would effectively transform the United States Postal Service into a “gun trafficking pipeline” for illegal weapons. Feinblatt argued that the new regulations would strip law enforcement agencies of critical tools they currently rely on to prevent gun crimes before they happen and to investigate illegal firearms trafficking after crimes occur. This fundamental disagreement reflects the broader national debate about how to balance Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns, a conversation that shows no signs of resolution as the country continues to grapple with gun violence while simultaneously protecting constitutional freedoms. As the USPS reviews the public comments received during the comment period, the decision on whether to implement this historic change will likely have far-reaching implications for gun policy, law enforcement, and American society for years to come.