A federal lawsuit filed on 15 July in Pennsylvania by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation is challenging the U.S. Postal Service’s nearly century-old ban on mailing handguns, arguing it infringes the Second Amendment as it lacks historical precedent at the nation’s founding. This move follows the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which requires firearm regulations to align with the country’s early traditions.
At issue is 18 U.S.C. § 1715, passed in 1927 after concerns over mail-order firearms sales. The plaintiffs, including Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve, argue that this statute criminalises ordinary transactions and imposes felony penalties, including up to two years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fines, without constitutional foundation. By invoking Bruen’s standard, they contend the law cannot stand if no similar colonial-era regulatory analogue exists.
For legal practitioners advising public, regulatory, or postal institutions, the case holds major significance. Should the court adopt the plaintiffs’ reasoning, it may not only dismantle longstanding federal firearms restrictions but also impose a more rigorous historical test on other regulatory regimes. Counsel must now reassess whether constitutions or public statutes withstand Bruen scrutiny, ensuring compliance or defining litigation risk in firearm, transport, or licensing regulations.
USPS has declined to comment publicly as the case proceeds in the Western District of Pennsylvania under Shreve v. USPS. Previous federal decisions such as those striking down age-based or drug-related firearm prohibitions hint that Bruen is emboldening challenges to longstanding gun-control measures.
This development highlights two legal imperatives: the importance of statutory design with deep historical grounding, and the potential for regulatory review across federal agencies. Should the court recognise USPS’s ban as unconstitutional, similar provisions, especially those governing other federal facilities, may face waves of legal scrutiny.
