Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve have filed a federal lawsuit against the United States Postal Service (USPS), challenging the longstanding prohibition on mailing handguns through the mail. According to a July 15, 2025, press release by Felisha Bull of GOA, the plaintiffs allege that this 1927 law violates the Second Amendment and lacks any historical precedent that justifies its continued enforcement.
The law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 1715, makes it a federal crime for private individuals to send handguns through the USPS. The GOA argues this statute is both outdated and discriminatory, as it carves out exceptions for government entities and federal firearm licensees (FFLs), while punishing ordinary Americans for doing the same.
GOA Declares the Ban an Anti-Gun Double Standard
Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, did not mince words in his statement: “This complaint demonstrates that the federal government’s Prohibition-era ban on mailing handguns violates the Second Amendment,” Pratt said in the press release. He framed the lawsuit as part of a broader effort to dismantle anti-gun regulations that unfairly protect the privileged few, those with government status or business licenses, while restricting ordinary citizens.
Pratt emphasized that GOA’s mission is to fight back against every “rule for me, but not for thee” law that puts unconstitutional burdens on law-abiding gun owners. The USPS regularly handles handgun shipments for police departments and gun stores, yet blocks everyday Americans from sending a legal firearm to a friend, family member, or buyer.
Mark Smith: “This Law Has Got to Go”
Constitutional attorney and Second Amendment advocate Mark W. Smith, host of the YouTube channel The Four Boxes Diner, echoed GOA’s position in a recent video. Smith laid out the legal foundation of the case and called the 1927 ban “a Prohibition-era relic that is ripe for repeal.”
“This law doesn’t apply to rifles or shotguns,” Smith pointed out. “It specifically singles out handguns, arguably the ‘quintessential self-defense weapon’, for special prohibition.” According to Smith, this selective treatment reveals the law’s irrational and unconstitutional nature.
No Historical Precedent for the Ban
Both the GOA and Smith argue that this restriction fails under the “text, history, and tradition” test set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen (2022). In the Bruen ruling, the Court required that any modern firearms regulation must be consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation as understood around 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified.
Smith explained in his video that prior to 1927, there was no restriction whatsoever on mailing handguns. “You can’t call something a ‘historical tradition’ if it didn’t exist until the 20th century,” he said. “And if there’s no historical example – then there’s no legal justification.”
The USPS is Still the Federal Government
The lawsuit targets a federal actor, the United States Postal Service, which is legally an arm of the federal government and subject to constitutional scrutiny. As Smith explained, “This isn’t some private delivery company. The USPS testifies in front of Congress, it operates under federal authority, and its policies must comply with the Constitution.”
That includes the Second Amendment. Smith made the case that the right to keep and bear arms inherently includes the ability to acquire and transport them, and that mailing a legally owned handgun falls squarely within that right.
Ancillary Rights and the Second Amendment
Smith pointed out that the right to “keep and bear arms” also implies several ancillary rights, such as the right to train with firearms and the right to acquire them. These rights, though not explicitly named, have been recognized by courts as essential to the exercise of the Second Amendment.
“You can’t own a gun if you can’t acquire one. And you can’t acquire one if you can’t get it,” Smith said. “The U.S. mail is one of the most common methods of shipping goods in America. To deny Americans access to that service for handguns is to deny them the means to exercise their constitutional rights.”
The Plaintiff Has Standing – and a Story
Bonita Shreve, the plaintiff in this case, wants to mail a legally owned handgun to her father, who lives three hours away in Pennsylvania. She’s not able to make the drive easily and wants to use the mail instead. But under current law, if she puts that gun in a USPS package, she could face federal criminal charges.
This ordinary, non-violent situation highlights the absurdity of the law. Shreve is not trafficking weapons or breaking state laws, she’s simply trying to use the U.S. mail for a lawful transfer of a firearm between two law-abiding citizens.
A Ban Without Justification
The GOA lawsuit argues there’s no reason for this restriction to exist other than bureaucratic inertia and anti-gun ideology. Shotguns and rifles can still be mailed under certain conditions. But handguns, which are more commonly used for self-defense, are singled out.
That distinction is not only irrational, according to Smith – it’s dangerous. By discouraging legal avenues of firearm transport, the law may even push people to rely on private, unregulated means of shipping, or worse, break the law without realizing it.
Will DOJ Fight This or Fold?
One of the big unknowns in this lawsuit is how the Department of Justice will respond. Smith speculated that, under current leadership, the DOJ might dig in and defend the law. But he warned that doing so would put the Biden-era DOJ (now run by Pam Bondi under the Trump administration) at odds with modern Supreme Court precedent.
“Any past cases defending this ban relied on outdated interest-balancing tests,” Smith said. “That’s no longer allowed under Bruen. So if DOJ chooses to defend this, they’ll be doing so without a legal leg to stand on.”
The Third Circuit Could Be Pivotal
The case is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Smith called this “a reasonably good appellate court” and far more constitutionally aligned than courts in the First or Ninth Circuits.
If this case moves upward, it could provide the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to revisit ancillary Second Amendment rights, or potentially issue another landmark decision striking down irrational firearm transport bans.
A Simple Case That Shouldn’t Exist
This is the kind of lawsuit that shouldn’t have to happen in a country with a clear and unambiguous Second Amendment. The idea that a law-abiding American cannot mail a lawfully owned handgun to their parent in another town, while the government and its licensed favorites can, is not only unjust, it’s embarrassing.
GOA is right to challenge it. And Mark Smith is right to say this case should be an easy win. If the DOJ chooses to defend this relic of the 1920s, they’ll only reveal how far some in government will go to deny rights that the Founders never intended to restrict.
It’s Time to End the “Gun Owner Class System”
At its core, this lawsuit is about equal rights under the law. Why should FFLs and government agencies have a privilege that everyday Americans are denied? The Second Amendment doesn’t create a special class of “approved” gun owners. It guarantees a right to all law-abiding citizens.
As Erich Pratt put it: “We are committed to ending all anti-gun ‘rules for me, but not for thee.’” If the court agrees, this outdated law will finally go where it belongs – into the history books.
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.
The article Outdated Gun Law from 1927 Now Under Fire in Federal Court first appeared on Survival World.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
