Can the USPS get any worse?

[Grayling813]

This is fantastic news, indeed.

One question - does this only apply to the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) members, or to everyone? I can't tell by reading the judgement. In the article, it says, "The court’s order also blocks the federal government from enforcing its unconstitutional ban against FPC members." That sounds like it might be too narrowly construed, to me.

Email from Armed Attorneys:

A federal judge in Fort Worth just struck down two federal provisions that have long barred firearms in post offices:
39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) (a postal regulation banning firearms on postal property)
18 U.S.C. § 930(a) (a statute banning firearms in federal facilities, including post offices)

In Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Bondi, the court held these provisions unconstitutional as applied to ordinary post offices and postal property. The ruling stressed that while the Founders were aware of threats to the mail system, they criminalized robbery and violence, not possession of firearms. The federal ban on firearms in post offices did not appear until the 1960s-1970s-nearly 200 years after the Second Amendment was ratified.

The court also rejected the government's argument that post offices should be treated as "sensitive places" like courthouses or polling locations, finding no historical analogue to support a blanket ban. Because of this, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (including Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation), issued declaratory relief, and permanently enjoined the government from enforcing these provisions against the plaintiffs and their members in ordinary post offices.

Full email here:

https://mailchi.mp/c7ae5a82419e/2025-po ... 21a83426da

Bottom Line
This ruling is a major step forward for Second Amendment litigation, but it's also limited in scope. It opens the door for members of FPC and SAF to carry in ordinary post offices lawfully, but it does not erase the federal ban for everyone. Expect appeals and closely monitor further developments.

[chasfm11]

FPC WIN: FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN POST OFFICE GUN BAN
FORT WORTH, TX (September 30, 2025)

\\https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-win- ... ce-gun-ban

FINALLY!!!!!

This is fantastic news, indeed.

One question - does this only apply to the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) members, or to everyone? I can't tell by reading the judgement. In the article, it says, "The court’s order also blocks the federal government from enforcing its unconstitutional ban against FPC members." That sounds like it might be too narrowly construed, to me.

According to this article
https://concealednation.org/2025/10/fed ... t-offices/

It only applies to the original plaintiffs. Like the Corps of Engineers District Court decision about 10 years ago, it is limited in its application. Someone needs to explain to me how something that is based on the Constitution can only apply to two individuals covered by that document. Especially in light of the flurry of District Court rulings which covered National issues and which the actual plaintiffs were not in that court. this seems like more stall tactics. While I "assume" that the risks are small, I'm not going to be packin' in a P.O building, hoping that if I'm detected and arrested, my case will be tossed if I point to this ruling.

[Mel]

OK, Someone please explain to me how a law can apply to everyone except members of certain organizations.

[srothstein]

This is at least partly based on the authority of the judge to issue junctions. As per a recent SCOTUS decision, district court judges cannot issue blanket injunctions. They can issue injunctions just for the parties who sued, either individually or as members of a class if a class action suit is permitted.

[Vol Texan]

This is at least partly based on the authority of the judge to issue junctions. As per a recent SCOTUS decision, district court judges cannot issue blanket injunctions. They can issue injunctions just for the parties who sued, either individually or as members of a class if a class action suit is permitted.

So can I be covered under this decision if I join the FPC or SAF now? Or does it only include those who were members at the time of the filing?

[srothstein]

That is unclear, but I am thinking of joining the FPC anyway. They are doing good work.

[puma guy]

That is unclear, but I am thinking of joining the FPC anyway. They are doing good work.

I researched their activities and I joined a few days ago. The are now issuing membership certificates for members.

[puma guy]

This is at least partly based on the authority of the judge to issue junctions. As per a recent SCOTUS decision, district court judges cannot issue blanket injunctions. They can issue injunctions just for the parties who sued, either individually or as members of a class if a class action suit is permitted.

It seemed to me the nationwide blocks by federal judges were only being applied to anti-Trump and anti-conservative issues any way.