Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation have filed a federal lawsuit, Shreve v. U.S. Postal Service, in the Western District of Pennsylvania challenging the U.S. Postal Service’s 1927 prohibition on mailing handguns. Filed on July 15, 2025, the suit argues that the ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, marking yet another assault on outdated federal firearm regulations.
The regulation, which dates back nearly a century, classifies the act of mailing a handgun as a federal felony. Violators can face up to $250,000 in fines and two years of imprisonment. GOA argues that this prohibition stems from early 20th-century fears surrounding gun trafficking via the mail—concerns that they argue are now outdated and irrelevant in today’s regulatory and logistical landscape.
The plaintiffs claim the USPS ban violates the framework laid out in the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which set a new legal test requiring that modern gun regulations be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. GOA contends there is no historical precedent from the Founding Era to justify such a blanket ban on the mailing of handguns, and that under Bruen, the rule cannot stand.
The lead plaintiff, Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve, seeks to legally mail a handgun to her father, who also lives in the state. Under current law, such an action is criminalized if conducted via the U.S. Postal Service. GOA asserts this legal hurdle not only infringes on individual rights but creates a two-tiered system where federal agencies and law enforcement are exempt from rules applied to law-abiding citizens.
Erich Pratt, senior vice president of GOA, stated the organization is fighting to dismantle what it views as an unjust double standard in federal law. “If it’s legal for citizens to own and transfer handguns, it should be legal to mail them too,” he emphasized in a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.
The lawsuit is one of several recent legal challenges aimed at reevaluating long-standing federal firearms regulations in light of the Bruen decision. Since 2022, courts have invalidated restrictions such as bans on handgun sales to adults under 21 and prohibitions against gun ownership by users of illegal drugs. The Shreve case continues that trend, questioning whether historical intent and public safety concerns from a century ago should continue to shape present-day laws.
This is not the first time the USPS has faced legal scrutiny over its firearm policies. In 2024, a federal court found the Postal Service’s blanket ban on carrying firearms into postal facilities to be unconstitutional, declaring that post offices are not automatically “sensitive places” akin to courthouses or schools. That ruling provided momentum to advocacy groups challenging similar restrictions, including the ban on mailing handguns.
The U.S. Postal Service has not commented publicly on the litigation, citing the pending nature of the case. However, legal observers suggest that if the court sides with GOA, the decision could dramatically alter the legal landscape for shipping firearms, potentially leading to broader reforms across federal agencies.
A ruling in GOA’s favor would set a national precedent, forcing USPS to revise its regulations and possibly paving the way for Congress to reevaluate other legacy statutes. It would also bring the Postal Service in line with private carriers like UPS and FedEx, which are permitted to transport handguns under strict regulatory compliance.
Even if the case does not immediately succeed, it could climb the appellate ladder and eventually be heard by the Supreme Court, providing the justices with yet another opportunity to clarify how Second Amendment rights apply in modern contexts.
The outcome of Shreve v. U.S. Postal Service could have lasting implications not only for individual gun owners but for how firearm commerce is regulated in the United States. As the nation continues to grapple with the balance between public safety and constitutional rights, cases like this one are increasingly shaping the next chapter of American gun law.
