The Trump Administration, via the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), issued a Memorandum Opinion on January 15, 2026, pertaining to the general ban on the mailing of handguns by use of the Postal Service. The Memorandum declared the federal ban on mailing handguns to be unconstitutional. This was a significant step toward restoring rights traditionally protected by the Second Amendment.
Our history is full of famous figures ordering firearms by mail, from Bat Masterson to President Theodore Roosevelt. In 1927, a federal law banning the mailing of handguns went into effect. It is widely regarded as the first federal firearms law.
The Congressional record of the debate shows the purpose was to prevent black people from circumventing existing state and local handgun bans on the carry of concealed weapons by black men.
“Here we have laid bare the principal cause for the high murder rate in Memphis–the carrying by colored people of a concealed deadly weapon, most often a pistol. Can we not cope with this situation?” – Senator John K. Shields (D-TN), 1924
It took time for the act to be passed and become law. Senator Shields said the primary purpose was to prevent black people from circumventing state and local bans on the possession and carry of concealed handguns. This was done through the interstate shipping of handguns. Shields asserted that no law-abiding citizen had any lawful reason to carry a concealed weapon. The ban only affected the postal service. Private shippers were not banned from shipping handguns.
The current regulation proposed by the Postal Service is designed to bring postal regulations back into conformity with the Constitution, or at least with the OLC Memorandum’s finding.
“The proposed revisions expand the scope of mailable firearms compared to the existing regulations by allowing lawful handguns to be mailed under the same terms and conditions as lawful rifles and shotguns. These conditions continue to require, among other things, that mailed firearms be
unloaded. Additionally, otherwise nonmailable handguns will remain mailable between authorized persons consistent with Section 1715.”
Handguns will be included as “Mailable firearms”. For mailing within a particular state, shipment of handguns will be required to use “Return Service Requested”. Tracking and signature capture at delivery will be required. For mailing to out-of-state addresses, by those without a Federal Firearms License, the following is required:
Out-of-State Mailings by Non-FFL Owners: Non-FFL owners may mail Mailable Firearms to themselves or another person in another state for lawful activities under the following conditions.The mailpiece must:
-
- Be addressed to the recipient.
- Include the “in the care of” endorsement immediately preceding the name of the applicable temporary custodian.
- Be opened by the recipient.
- Be mailed using a class of mail, product, or Extra Service that provides tracking and signature capture at delivery.
- Be addressed to the recipient.
The reform regulation will not go into effect until the comment period has lapsed. The comment period will begin at the time of publication in the Federal Register, expected on April 2, 2026, and continue for 30 days. Comments can be made after the proposed rule is published. Exactly when the regulation may go into effect is not certain at this time. If this rule is of interest, citizens can influence it through reasoned arguments submitted via comments at the link when the comment period is open.
One of the expected results of being able to send handguns through the postal service is a drop in the cost of ordering handguns remotely, through the Internet, telephone, or by mail. The cost of returning handguns to the manufacturer for warranty service should also drop. The cost of sending handguns through non-postal means has skyrocketed in recent years, along with privacy concerns.
The argument over the utility of concealed weapons continues to this day. Those opposed to an armed population claim that weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, especially handguns, serve no useful purpose. Those supporting the reasoning behind the adoption of the Second Amendment claim multiple useful and necessary purposes. Research on the subject is divided.
Bans on handguns do not appear to reduce overall homicide rates or suicide rates. Handgun bans appear to be motivated for purposes of political power.
The Second Amendment appears clear on the subject. The Supreme Court has issued a definitive opinion in the Bruen decision. The Second Amendment protects the right to be armed in public.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
