Anti-Gun State AGs Step In to Argue the USPS Should Keep Its Ban on Shipping Handguns

March 9, 2026
8:00 am

▶

Listen to Article

In a move that's equal parts audacious and absurd, the attorneys general from New York, California, and Hawaii—three of the most notoriously anti-gun states in the union—have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Postal Service's longstanding ban on shipping handguns. Their stated goal? To provide the Second Amendment defense that no other party currently will. Yes, you read that right: these are the same officials who've spent years championing red-flag laws, assault weapon bans, and magazine restrictions, now volunteering to defend a policy that treats handguns like hazmat while allowing long guns and rifles to be mailed with proper labeling. It's like asking the fox to guard the henhouse and then watching it argue that the chickens need more protection from themselves. This isn't just bureaucratic theater; it's a calculated power play with deep implications for the Second Amendment community. The underlying lawsuit, brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition and others, argues that the USPS ban—rooted in a 1960s-era regulation never fully scrutinized under modern constitutional standards—unconstitutionally burdens law-abiding gun owners who rely on mail-order transfers for everything from heirloom firearms to rural FFL shipments. By jumping in, these AGs aren't defending the USPS (which has stayed neutral); they're hijacking the narrative to frame gun rights advocates as reckless, positioning themselves as the reasonable voices upholding public safety. Never mind that Bruen (2022) demands historical analogues for such restrictions, and there's zero Founding-era precedent for prohibiting the common carriage of arms via post roads—Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly empowers Congress to establish them for commerce, including firearms. For 2A supporters, this is a wake-up call: expect more such interventions from blue-state AGs in gun cases nationwide, turning defensive postures into offensive propaganda. It underscores the urgency of federal reforms like the SAFE Access to Firearms and Explosives (SAFE) Act, which would mandate USPS parity with private carriers like UPS and FedEx. If these AGs truly cared about the Second Amendment, they'd be dismantling barriers, not building them. Instead, this stunt reveals their endgame: erode practical gun ownership one shipping restriction at a time, all while cloaking it in faux constitutionalism. Stay vigilant, 2A fam—our rights aren't mailing it in.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

In a move that’s equal parts audacious and absurd, the attorneys general from New York, California, and Hawaii—three of the most notoriously anti-gun states in the union—have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Postal Service’s longstanding ban on shipping handguns. Their stated goal? To provide the Second Amendment defense that no other party currently will. Yes, you read that right: these are the same officials who’ve spent years championing red-flag laws, assault weapon bans, and magazine restrictions, now volunteering to defend a policy that treats handguns like hazmat while allowing long guns and rifles to be mailed with proper labeling. It’s like asking the fox to guard the henhouse and then watching it argue that the chickens need more protection from themselves.

This isn’t just bureaucratic theater; it’s a calculated power play with deep implications for the Second Amendment community. The underlying lawsuit, brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition and others, argues that the USPS ban—rooted in a 1960s-era regulation never fully scrutinized under modern constitutional standards—unconstitutionally burdens law-abiding gun owners who rely on mail-order transfers for everything from heirloom firearms to rural FFL shipments. By jumping in, these AGs aren’t defending the USPS (which has stayed neutral); they’re hijacking the narrative to frame gun rights advocates as reckless, positioning themselves as the reasonable voices upholding public safety. Never mind that Bruen (2022) demands historical analogues for such restrictions, and there’s zero Founding-era precedent for prohibiting the common carriage of arms via post roads—Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly empowers Congress to establish them for commerce, including firearms.

For 2A supporters, this is a wake-up call: expect more such interventions from blue-state AGs in gun cases nationwide, turning defensive postures into offensive propaganda. It underscores the urgency of federal reforms like the SAFE Access to Firearms and Explosives (SAFE) Act, which would mandate USPS parity with private carriers like UPS and FedEx. If these AGs truly cared about the Second Amendment, they’d be dismantling barriers, not building them. Instead, this stunt reveals their endgame: erode practical gun ownership one shipping restriction at a time, all while cloaking it in faux constitutionalism. Stay vigilant, 2A fam—our rights aren’t mailing it in.

Share this story