In a recent video, Phil Reboli of Gun Owners of America (GOA) says the U.S. Postal Service has enforced a handgun-mailing ban since 1927.
He calls it an “ancient infringement” that predates even the National Firearms Act of 1934.
On Law & Ammo, Reboli explains why GOA is suing the USPS and the Postmaster General to end the policy for private citizens.
What the Law Actually Says
According to Reboli, the statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1715.
It declares that pistols, revolvers, and other firearms “capable of being concealed on the person” are non-mailable by private individuals.
He emphasizes that the rule isn’t total. Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are exempt, so USPS carriers deliver plenty of handguns – just not for ordinary, law-abiding citizens.
Reboli digs into the Prohibition-era backstory. He says lawmakers in the 1920s leaned into panic about crime and handguns.
During House debate, he notes, Rep. Miller argued the bill would stop criminals from replenishing guns via mail-order houses.
Opposition existed, Reboli adds. He cites Texas Congressman Thomas Blanton, who warned criminals would get guns “in spite of any law.”
Reboli’s takeaway: even then, some recognized that curbing the mail wouldn’t curb crime.
Why GOA Filed This Lawsuit
Reboli says the ban survived every wave of federal gun laws – 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, the Brady Act – and still blocks regular citizens from using the nation’s most ubiquitous carrier for lawful handgun shipments.
He calls that inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
So GOA filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Reboli explains.
He describes the plaintiff as a GOA member who wants to gift a handgun to her father.
They live three hours apart.
Because she is not an FFL, Reboli says, she can’t mail it through USPS – even though both are lawful gun owners. The complaint, as Reboli outlines it, seeks a permanent injunction barring USPS from enforcing § 1715 against private citizens.
GOA argues the law is obsolete and unconstitutional.
Reboli stresses that this is a clean test case: two adults, no prohibited persons, no interstate trafficking angle – just a lawful gift blocked by a 1927 rule.
Reboli frames the harm in practical terms.The ban forces long drives for face-to-face handoffs or expensive private carriers with restrictive policies.
For many, those hurdles kill otherwise lawful, normal transactions.
How Winning Would Change Things
Reboli lays out several immediate changes if GOA prevails.
First, gun owners could mail a handgun ahead of travel and then fly without checking a firearm in baggage.
That would reduce airline friction and lost-baggage anxiety for lawful travelers. Second, he says private citizens could mail intrastate to other individuals where state law allows.
No need for same-day, long-distance meetups in sprawling states.
He gives a concrete example: Texas.
Driving from El Paso to Beaumont takes about 12 hours. With USPS available to private citizens, in-state, lawful transfers could happen with far less time and cost. Reboli notes this wouldn’t erase other laws.
State rules still apply. Federal prohibitions still apply.
The point is restoring the USPS as a lawful option – something ordinary people used before 1927 and that FFLs can still use today.
He argues the current setup is irrational. The very same handgun can ride the same postal truck if it belongs to an FFL, but not if it belongs to a law-abiding adult.
Reboli frames that distinction as a government-created privilege, not a public-safety necessity.
He also ties the case to recent Supreme Court guidance. While he doesn’t litigate Bruen on camera, his premise mirrors that standard: longstanding bans must align with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
A 1927 enactment born of Prohibition politics is hardly Founding-era tradition.
Why This Case Matters
Here’s why this caught my attention.
Reboli is not talking about shipping guns like packages of gum. He’s pointing at the carrier of record for the entire country – the USPS – and asking why only a licensed class gets to use it for handguns.
That question lands hard in rural America, where distances are real and time is money.
Second, the asymmetry is the story. If USPS moving a handgun is inherently too risky, why permit it for FFLs every day?
If it’s safe and common for licensees, it’s hard to argue the conveyor belt itself becomes dangerous when a law-abiding citizen is the sender.
Third, the human angle is refreshingly ordinary. A daughter wants to gift a pistol to her father, both legal to own, in the same country, separated by a few hours of highway.
A rule from 1927 stands in the way – not because of danger, but because of status.
From a policy lens, this is a calibration case. A win wouldn’t blow open the mail to anything goes. It would restore access to an existing, regulated system with tracking, addresses, and federal penalties for fraud.
That looks more traceable than many cash-in-person alternatives.
Finally, there’s a broader principle Reboli keeps circling: rights shouldn’t depend on a license class. If the government relies on “FFL only” to justify a public-carrier privilege, it should show why that distinction is necessary for safety – today, not in the Prohibition era.
The Road Ahead, As Told by Phil Reboli
On Law & Ammo, Reboli is clear: GOA believes § 1715 cannot survive modern Second Amendment scrutiny.
He says their plaintiff, like many others, is harmed by a rule that does not meaningfully fight crime but does block lawful conduct.
He promises updates as the case moves through the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Reboli also lists the practical wins again to drive the point home. Travel flexibility. Intrastate convenience. Lower transaction friction in huge states. And a simple, intuitive outcome: law-abiding adults can lawfully use the postal service, the people’s carrier, for lawful handgun shipments.
He reminds viewers that GOA is suing both the USPS and the Postmaster General.
The ask is a permanent injunction – a court order stopping enforcement against ordinary citizens.
That’s the cleanest path to restoring the option nationwide. Reboli frames the lawsuit as part legal fight, part history lesson. The 1920s saw policy made in a haze of fear and moral crusades.
A century later, he argues, we can correct that with law, not rhetoric.
He closes with a simple pitch: the rule is old, ineffective, and unfair. If crime was the justification, it failed. If safety is the justification today, FFL exemptions undercut it.
GOA believes the Constitution is the better guide – and he’s betting a federal judge will agree.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
