On Thursday, the Division of Justice’s Workplace of Authorized Counsel (OLC), led by Assistant Legal professional Common T. Elliot Gaiser, issued a groundbreaking memorandum opinion concluding that 18 U.S.C. § 1715, the almost century-old federal statute prohibiting the mailing of concealable firearms, is unconstitutional as utilized to constitutionally protected arms, similar to handguns. This opinion marks a big software of the Supreme Court docket’s 2022 resolution in New York State Rifle & Pistol Affiliation v. Bruen, extending Second Modification protections to the cargo of firearms by way of the U.S. Postal Service.
Enacted in 1927 as one of many earliest federal gun management measures, § 1715 declares “pistols, revolvers, and different firearms able to being hid on the particular person” nonmailable, with restricted exceptions for presidency officers and licensed sellers. The legislation was initially designed to curb mail-order handgun gross sales that bypassed strict state and native rules in the course of the early twentieth century. At this time, mixed with insurance policies from non-public carriers like FedEx, UPS, and DHL, which largely prohibit non-licensed people from delivery firearms, it successfully creates a near-total ban on non-public residents mailing handguns.
The OLC opinion argues that this restriction violates the Second Modification. Handguns, the opinion notes, are “among the many core ‘arms’ protected” by the modification, as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Below Bruen’s framework, which requires gun rules to be according to the nation’s historic custom of firearm regulation, the federal government bears the burden of justifying fashionable restrictions with historic analogues.
The opinion finds § 1715 missing on a number of fronts. First, it burdens the core Second Modification proper to “maintain and bear” arms for lawful functions, together with self-defense, searching, and goal capturing. Sensible eventualities illustrate this burden: a traveler flying by means of restrictive jurisdictions like New York, driving with interruptions that void interstate transport protections below 18 U.S.C. § 926A, or utilizing buses that refuse firearms as baggage typically go away mailing as the one viable choice for transporting a handgun. But non-public carriers’ bans and § 1715 foreclose this, stifling lawful journey with arms.
Second, the legislation impedes incidental rights essential to train the Second Modification, similar to buying firearms (e.g., receiving one immediately by way of mail from a member of the family or vendor) or sustaining them (e.g., mailing to a gunsmith for repairs with out involving a federal firearms licensee, thereby incurring further prices and delays).
Reside Stock Worth Checker
Most critically, the opinion deems § 1715’s objective illegitimate: it goals to suppress site visitors in concealable firearms, significantly handguns, which Congress in 1927 seen as non-protected and primarily prison instruments.
This immediately conflicts with post-Heller jurisprudence affirming handguns as quintessential self-defense weapons. No historic custom broadly helps prohibiting the cargo of protected arms amongst law-abiding residents. Colonial-era restrictions on promoting arms to Native People or exporting throughout wartime are distinguishable, as they addressed hostile threats or widespread protection, not non-public interstate commerce. Gunpowder storage legal guidelines, typically cited as analogues, involved explosive hazards, not unloaded firearms.
The opinion distinguishes rifles and shotguns (mailable below USPS guidelines) from handguns, noting the latter’s disfavor below USPS guidelines. It additionally clarifies limits: the ruling doesn’t prolong to non-protected gadgets (e.g., privately manufactured firearms), require mailing ammunition (resulting from hazards with historic analogues), or mandate authorities parcel service altogether. However because the Postal Service operates one and permits handgun mailing for FFLs, it can’t discriminatorily ban non-public residents.
Citing longstanding OLC precedent on government authority to say no imposing unconstitutional statutes, the opinion advises the DOJ to stop prosecutions below § 1715 for protected firearms and urges the Postal Service to revise Publication 52 accordingly. This follows ideas similar to presuming constitutionality the place potential, contemplating the chance of Supreme Court docket settlement below Bruen, and avoiding undue chilling of rights pending litigation.
The opinion references an ongoing problem, Shreve v. U.S. Postal Service (filed in July 2025 in Pennsylvania), wherein plaintiffs, together with Gun Homeowners of America (GOA), search to enjoin § 1715. That case stays pending, however the OLC deems the rights infringement too imminent to await decision.
This growth may reshape firearm commerce and journey. Non-public residents might quickly mail handguns immediately (topic to state legal guidelines and USPS security guidelines), bypassing FFL transfers. It aligns with post-Bruen developments that develop the scope of the Second Modification, which can affect different transportation restrictions. Proponents see it as restoring rights in a contemporary context wherein non-public carriers’ insurance policies have amplified an outdated ban.
As of January 2026, the legislation stays on the books, however the DOJ’s non-enforcement shifts sensible actuality. Congress may repeal or amend § 1715 (as proposed in payments like H.R. 3033), or courts might weigh in by way of Shreve. For now, this OLC opinion, binding throughout the government, alerts a daring government reinterpretation of gun rights within the Bruen period.
NY Legal professional Common Letitia James Charging Florida Man with 71 Gun Crimes
Cage Match For America Grows Ever Extra Vicious ~ VIDEOS
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA teacher and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed individuals from all walks of life, and on the Structure. John lives in Northern Virginia together with his spouse and sons, comply with him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
