Vol Texan wrote: Thu Oct 02, 2025 12:25 pm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
srothstein wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2025 11:40 pm
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?
Your best option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.
srothstein wrote: Sun Oct 05, 2025 11:06 pm
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.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
srothstein wrote: Sat Oct 04, 2025 11:40 pm
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.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
DOJ Says Law-Abiding Americans Can Carry Guns in Public Post Offices.
The United States Department of Justice has released a formal Office of Legal Counsel memorandum opinion clarifying that law-abiding Americans may carry constitutionally protected firearms into publicly accessible post offices for self-defense without violating federal criminal law. The opinion, dated August 12, 2026, and authored by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit, interprets 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), the longstanding prohibition on possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons in federal facilities, as not reaching ordinary self-defense carry in post offices open to the public.
Section 930(a) makes it a federal crime to knowingly possess a firearm in a federal facility, defined as a building or portion thereof owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees regularly perform official duties. Post offices clearly qualify under this definition. However, subsection (d)(3) creates an explicit exception for the “lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”
I researched their activities and I joined a few days ago. The are now issuing membership certificates for members.
