On March 17, 2026, Chief Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas handed the Second Amendment community a second victory in Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Bondi, No. 4:24-cv-00565 (N.D. Tex.) — and this one is about the remedy. Judge O’Connor denied the DOJ’s motion to narrow the scope of his permanent injunction, confirming it extends to all present and future members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), with no geographic restriction, across every ordinary post office in the United States.
My rule: there is no right without a remedy. Win on the merits and then let the government carve the remedy down to nothing — and you’ve won nothing. That is exactly what the DOJ was attempting here, and Judge O’Connor stopped it cold.
The Ruling That Already Existed — and the Fight to Shrink It
Let me set the table. Back in September 2025, Judge O’Connor granted summary judgment in favor of FPC and SAF, declaring 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) — the federal statute and USPS regulation banning firearms in post offices — unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to ordinary postal facilities. His reasoning was sound: there is no comprehensive security at a post office, nothing remotely like TSA screening, and no historical tradition that would justify treating a post office as a “sensitive place” where the government can disarm law-abiding citizens.
That merits ruling was the first win. The March 17 order is the second: the DOJ moved to limit the permanent injunction only to the named individual plaintiffs, trying to strip out SAF and FPC members entirely. Judge O’Connor applied longstanding Supreme Court precedent and rejected that effort. His language was precise:
“The court grants in part defendants’ motion and the permanent injunction as set forth in the court’s order number 35 and the final judgment number 36 applies to plaintiffs and to all present and future members of Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. and Second Amendment Foundation.”
That’s a permanent injunction — not a preliminary one. A preliminary injunction holds things in place during active litigation; a permanent injunction is the final judgment. This case is over at the district court level. The government lost on the merits, lost the scope fight, and is now before the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 25-11328 — an appellate court that has not been kind to sweeping federal gun bans.
Six Questions I Put to SAF — and Their Answers
After the March 17 ruling dropped, I posted a series of questions on X to SAF and FPC, the kind of practical questions that members and prospective members need answered. Kostas Moros and the SAF team came back with detailed replies. Here is the breakdown.
Are you covered? Only if you are a current member. SAF was direct: “Nope, you must become a member for the injunction to apply to you.” Membership is $25 a year at saf.org. I’ve heard the objection — why should you have to join an organization to exercise a constitutional right? It’s a fair frustration. But think about what the NAACP meant to Black Americans in the 1950s and ’60s. They joined, organized, and benefited from legal victories the organization secured. This is the world we live in, and joining these organizations is how you access the wins they fight for.
Does it cover every post office? Nationwide, with narrow exceptions. SAF’s answer: “It applies to all post offices except those that are contained in a location where carry is otherwise prohibited for a separate reason. For example, if the post office is on a military base, you cannot carry there.” A stand-alone USPS branch on Main Street? Covered. A postal counter inside a federal courthouse or on a military installation? Not covered, because an independent carry prohibition applies there regardless.
Preemption or affirmative defense? This is the practically important question the government has not yet answered clearly. Does the injunction mean federal law enforcement will not arrest a covered member in the first place — preemption — or does it mean you get arrested, charged, and then raise the injunction as an affirmative defense in court? SAF was honest: “That’s up to the Department of Justice, not us. We urge them to stop enforcing this unconstitutional law entirely and not just against SAF members.” I agree. The DOJ should stand down. Article II’s Take Care Clause creates a general presumption that DOJ defends and enforces federal law, but there is wiggle room in enforcement priorities, and this is exactly where that discretion should be used.
What if the Fifth Circuit reverses? Follow SAF for updates. They will get the word out immediately if the injunction is stayed or overturned. I don’t expect the Fifth Circuit to be favorable to the government here, but the appeal is live and members should stay informed.
The Broader Stakes
The DOJ’s attempt to gut this injunction’s scope did not come from hostility to the Second Amendment. My read is that the Trump administration fears broad injunction language becoming precedent weaponized in other contexts — immigration cases, for instance, where a single district court ruling could be extended to cover millions of people. That is a legitimate structural concern. But I cannot support applying that caution to shrink our Second Amendment wins. If remedies are going to be limited, that should apply across the board — not selectively against the cases where the administration’s own supporters are the beneficiaries.
FPC and SAF fought this case, won the merits, won the remedy fight, and now the government is defending an unconstitutional statute before the Fifth Circuit. My strong advice: join one or both organizations, carry documentary proof of membership when you visit a covered post office, consult your own attorney about your specific situation, and watch for any appellate updates. Understanding the mechanics of the remedy is what makes this win real.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.