By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Concealed RepublicanConcealed Republican
  • Home
  • Latest News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
Reading: Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Font ResizerAa
Concealed RepublicanConcealed Republican
  • News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
  • Home
  • Latest News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
Concealed Republican > Blog > News > Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional
News

Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional

Jim Taft
Last updated: October 1, 2025 4:28 pm
By Jim Taft 6 Min Read
Share
Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional
SHARE

A federal court ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional. This ruling comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.





On September 30, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor delivered an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and two citizens —  Gavin Pate and George Mandry —  in challenging the federal law.

O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” There’s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. “So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a ‘sensitive place,’ it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue,’” the complaint said.

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property. U.S. v. Ayala in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala’s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: “The United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala’s indictment under § 930(a).”





In Ayala, the Department of Justice dismissed their motion for an appeal in August. That move allowed Judge Mizelle’s order to stand.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement. “As we’ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.”

The order applies to “ordinary post offices,” and explains, “Because Plaintiffs have agreed to limit their relief to ordinary post offices not located in restricted areas like military bases or where the Government provides armed security, the Court likewise limits its remedies to ordinary post offices.”

“This is a huge win for SAF and its members,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.”

Named plaintiff FPC observed in their statement that “Judge O’Connor explained, ‘it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office — particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden’ to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is ‘unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms’ inside a post office or on post office property.”





Speaking on behalf of FPC, Foundation President Brandon Combs noted that governments can’t ban weapons in “unsecured public spaces.” He further stated that governments also can’t “invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ whenever they please.”

“For too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps,” Combs said. “That ends here.”

The victory in FPC v. Bondi is another step towards fully repatriating the people with a whole Second Amendment. Rather than turn into contortions of Cirque du Soleil proportions to find an analogue, the federal court found the government failed to meet the appropriate burden of proof — because there isn’t one.

Considering the Department of Justice’s recent withdrawal in the Ayala criminal possession case, it’s not likely they’ll seek an appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you never know. We’ll be keeping up with this case and will be reporting back with any future findings.


Editor’s Note: Organizations like Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legal successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.



Read the full article here

You Might Also Like

Eric Swalwell finally answers Chinese spy allegations

Trump seals economic agreements in Middle East in final stretch and more top headlines

Ex-ESPN host Samantha Ponder talks trans athletes in women’s sports

Who ran the White House? Ask Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson under oath

Trump claims Canada ‘considering’ offer of free Golden Dome in exchange for becoming 51st state

Share This Article
Facebook X Email Print
Previous Article ‘Go to church’: Elon Musk amplifies Erika Kirk’s call for Christian revival ‘Go to church’: Elon Musk amplifies Erika Kirk’s call for Christian revival
Next Article Collins, Murkowski Didn’t Meet With Key Trump Nominee Before Withdrawal Collins, Murkowski Didn’t Meet With Key Trump Nominee Before Withdrawal
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

- Advertisement -
Ad image

Latest News

What Democrats Are Fighting For: Free Obamacare Plans
What Democrats Are Fighting For: Free Obamacare Plans
Politics
Collins, Murkowski Didn’t Meet With Key Trump Nominee Before Withdrawal
‘So Be It’: Democrat Rep Brags His Party Shut Gov’t Down
Politics
Oakland Arrest Shatters Illusion of California Gun Control’s Effectiveness
Oakland Arrest Shatters Illusion of California Gun Control’s Effectiveness
News
Don Lemon SLAMS white men and Joy Reid redefines fascism
Don Lemon SLAMS white men and Joy Reid redefines fascism
News
JD Vance hits Democrats on illegal immigrant health care in funding fight
JD Vance hits Democrats on illegal immigrant health care in funding fight
News
Detroit Man Gifted $100K by Influencer Kidnapped, Robbed by Relatives [WATCH]
Detroit Man Gifted $100K by Influencer Kidnapped, Robbed by Relatives [WATCH]
Politics
© 2025 Concealed Republican. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Press Release
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?