New postal rule could allow direct handgun shipments for first time since 1927

This story was originally published by The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom covering gun violence in America.

The United States Postal Service has proposed a rule that would allow handguns to be shipped through the mail, bypassing a longstanding law prohibiting the practice. The changes were made at the urging of the Department of Justice, which concluded that the ban on mailing handguns violates the Second Amendment.

Both FedEx and UPS allow only federally licensed dealers to ship guns, and DHL prohibits the shipping of firearms altogether. So if the new rule takes effect, the Postal Service will be the only option for handgun owners seeking to mail their firearms. 

Anti-violence advocates are sounding an alarm, while pro-gun advocates cheered the news. But what will the change really mean? We took a deeper look.

What are the real-world implications?

The new rule would allow people to use the Postal Service to mail handguns to each other within the same state without involving a licensed gun dealer. This marks a departure from current law, which allows people to mail only long guns — like rifles and shotguns — within the same state. Additionally, under the rule, people would be able to send handguns across state lines as long as they address the package to themselves “in the care of” a resident in the destination state. The sender would still have to be present at the destination to receive the package in person, which is the current procedure for mailing long guns out of state. 

The rule would also loosen regulations around mailing handguns to out-of-state gun dealers. Under current law, people can use the Postal Service to mail a long gun to a dealer in another state, and can have an out-of-state long gun mailed to a local dealer for pickup. They cannot do the same with handguns. The new rule would lift that prohibition.

Robert Spitzer, a professor at the State University of New York at Cortland who has served as an expert witness in Second Amendment cases, called the proposed rule “a below-the-radar change that is likely to have significant long-term consequences.” 

Critics say that letting people mail handguns to each other could allow someone to acquire a firearm without undergoing a background check. 

Earlier this month, a coalition of 22 attorneys general filed a formal comment letter arguing that only Congress can change the century-old regulation around mailing firearms, and that the proposed rule creates a dangerous loophole that could put guns in the hands of felons and domestic abusers. They also pointed to the expense of creating “entirely new investigative and tracking structures to account for the unregulated mailing of concealable firearms,” which would burden state budgets.

Then there’s the problem of theft. The new rule would require tracking, a signature upon delivery, and nondescript packaging to mail a handgun. But delivery personnel don’t always follow procedure, and packages are regularly pilfered from porches. Allowing handguns to be mailed, and possibly intercepted, Spitzer said, “increases the likelihood of breaking the chain of ownership of a gun, making tracing much more difficult.”

What is the current law? 

A 1927 federal law bars concealable firearms — defined as pistols, revolvers, and short-barreled shotguns and rifles — from being mailed through the Postal Service, with exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and gun manufacturers and dealers. Violators face up to two years in prison and a fine.

The Prohibition-era ban passed because of widespread concerns about criminals using handguns. That’s still a problem today, Spitzer said, as the vast majority of gun crimes are perpetrated with handguns, as opposed to rifles or shotguns.

What’s the reason for the change?

The Justice Department issued a memo in January concluding that the ban on mailing handguns violates the Second Amendment. In April, the Postal Service published the proposed rule removing handguns from the ban. The prohibition on mailing short-barreled shotguns and rifles — which are more strictly regulated than handguns and long guns and require a deeper level of vetting to acquire — would remain in effect.

In its memo, the Justice Department argued that the patchwork of state laws around gun carry makes it difficult to take handguns across state lines for “constitutionally protected activity” including target shooting, hunting, and self-defense, and therefore mail is the only option. 

Is the Justice Department’s claim true?

Spitzer pushed back on the Justice Department’s assertion that the variation in state gun carry laws limits people to the mail. “Handguns can be transported legally across state lines now,” he said.

That’s because of the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, which allows someone to take a gun to other states as long as it’s unloaded, locked in a container placed out of reach, and the owner is legally allowed to possess it in both the origin state and the destination state. Mailing a gun could actually take longer than driving it yourself, Spitzer said.

The Justice Department’s claim is further contradicted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ recent move to make it easier for people to transport guns across state lines. The ATF proposed allowing gun owners to stop along their route, like at gas stations and hotels, without having to worry about being prosecuted for violating local firearm restrictions.

Experts warned that the Postal Service rule could set a precedent for the Trump administration to effectively nullify other federal statutes without congressional approval. Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law, called the administration’s move “radical.” “If the executive branch is claiming the power to invalidate statutes it deems unconstitutional — apparently regardless of whether courts have upheld the law in the past when it was enforced — there is nothing to stop the Justice Department from doing this with any other law it doesn’t like at the moment,” he said.

Andrew Willinger, assistant professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law, said he expects the new rule to be challenged in court. If the Democratic state attorneys general wanted to sue, they’d have a strong case because of the Justice Department’s reinterpretation of the 1927 ban. “The statute says mailing concealable firearms is prohibited,” Willinger said. “You can’t, as an agency, say something that a statute prohibits is allowed. That’s something only Congress can do.”

Willinger said he’s surprised the administration didn’t go to Congress first, as cutting lawmakers out of the process ensures the rule is temporary — the next administration could just ignore the current administration’s reinterpretation of the law. 

What do gun groups say? 

Gun groups, including the National Rifle Association, have cheered the Postal Service’s proposal. In an emailed statement to USA Today, John Commerford, who heads the NRA’s lobbying arm, said: “For nearly a century, the United States Postal Service has arbitrarily blocked handguns from being mailed. The Trump Administration is delivering another key victory for America’s law-abiding gun owners.” 

Gun Owners of America, which is challenging federal handgun mailing restrictions in court, believes the new rule doesn’t go far enough and that short-barreled shotguns and rifles should be removed from the ban as well.

The public comment period for the rule change closed on May 4. Administration officials said they will review the comments before the rule becomes final, a process that typically takes several months.

Jennifer Mascia is a senior news writer and founding staffer at The Trace. She previously covered gun violence at The New York Times. In her dozen years on this beat, she’s covered community gun violence, the intersection of domestic violence and guns, and the growing role of firearms in public life.