The United States Postal Service has published a proposed rule that would, for the first time in nearly a century, allow ordinary Americans to mail handguns through the federal postal system. The move follows a January 2026 memorandum opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel declaring that the longstanding federal ban on mailing handguns is unconstitutional. This is a significant and concrete expansion of Second Amendment rights delivered through the administrative process rather than the courts.
The Ban and Its Demise
Since 1927, 18 U.S.C. Section 1715 has classified handguns as “non-mailable,” prohibiting private citizens from sending them through the U.S. mail. Rifles and shotguns, meanwhile, could be mailed under certain conditions. The practical effect was that a law-abiding gun owner could not use the Postal Service to ship a handgun to themselves at a second home or send one out for repair — even though these are clearly lawful purposes involving constitutionally protected arms.
On January 15, 2026, the Office of Legal Counsel changed the calculus. At the request of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the OLC evaluated Section 1715 under the analytical framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Its conclusion was unequivocal: the statute “is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected firearms, including handguns, because it serves an illegitimate purpose and is inconsistent with the Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.”
The reasoning was straightforward. Under Bruen, a firearms regulation must have a historical analog in this nation’s tradition of firearm regulation to survive scrutiny. The OLC found none. And since District of Columbia v. Heller established handguns as the “quintessential self-defense weapon,” singling them out for exclusion from the mail while permitting long guns was constitutionally indefensible. The OLC further concluded that the executive branch may not enforce Section 1715 against constitutionally protected firearms and directed the Postal Service to modify its regulations accordingly.
The USPS Proposed Rule
The Postal Service has now done exactly that. In a Federal Register notice published April 2, 2026, the USPS proposed revisions to Publication 52, its internal mailability standards. The key change: lawful handguns would become mailable under the same terms and conditions that currently govern the mailing of lawful rifles and shotguns. Mailed firearms must still be unloaded, and items regulated under the National Firearms Act — machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and the like — remain non-mailable except between authorized persons. The proposed rule includes a public comment period before final promulgation.
Why the Process Matters
The sequence of events here illustrates how executive branch action can vindicate constitutional rights without waiting for a court order. Attorney General Bondi requested the OLC opinion. The OLC — staffed largely by former Supreme Court clerks and widely regarded as one of the most intellectually rigorous offices in the federal government — issued a formal memorandum concluding the statute was unconstitutional. That opinion carries binding weight throughout the executive branch, prompting the Postal Service, a separate agency, to initiate rulemaking to bring its regulations into compliance with the Constitution.
This is the “brick by brick” process at work. One favorable legal determination becomes the foundation for the next concrete policy change. The OLC opinion did not just sit on a shelf — it produced a real-world regulatory outcome that will expand the ability of millions of Americans to transport constitutionally protected arms through the mail.
Looking Ahead
Once the proposed rule is finalized, Americans will be able to mail handguns through the USPS for lawful purposes under the same framework that has governed long-gun shipments for decades. The broader significance, however, is the executive branch’s willingness to apply Bruen’s historical-tradition test proactively — identifying and dismantling federal regulations that lack historical justification rather than waiting for litigation to force the issue. That posture, maintained consistently, could have ripple effects across numerous federal firearms regulations that similarly fail the Bruen standard.
This article is based on analysis by Mark W. Smith on The Four Boxes Diner. Watch the original video. This does not constitute legal advice.