If you’ve ever found yourself standing in a slow-moving line at the post office with arms full of packages for friends and family, you’ve probably had plenty of time to look around, read every poster on the wall, and wonder how many people in front of you forgot to fill out their address labels.
But here’s something you probably didn’t think about during all that waiting: whether the government can ban you from carrying a firearm while you’re in there mailing those gifts.
The Texas Case That Kicked Off the Conversation
On September 30, 2025, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a major decision in Firearms Policy Coalition Inc., et al. v. Pamela Bondi.
Judge O’Connor ruled that long-standing bans on possessing or carrying firearms inside ordinary post offices, or on their regular property, violate the Second Amendment.
Yes, the familiar “no firearms” signs you see as you walk in the lobby were part of what the case was about.
Judge O’Connor looked at two regulations:
- 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) — a federal statute banning firearms in federal buildings
- 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) — a U.S. Postal Service regulation banning weapons in post offices
And he found that neither line up with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, especially under the Supreme Court’s modern Bruen framework. See, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
How We Got Here
Interestingly, both the statutory and regulatory bans are relatively new historical inventions. The first federal ban on guns in government buildings wasn’t enacted until 1964, long after the Bill of Rights was ratified, and the Postal Service’s own ban came in 1972.
The lawsuit in question began in June 2024, originally filed against then–Attorney General Merrick Garland. Pamela Bondi inherited the case as AG by the time the court ruled, so she became the named defendant. The plaintiffs included The Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and two Texas citizens: Gavin Pate and George Mandry.
Where a Previous Similar Ruling in The Ayala Case Fits In — Yes, It Matters
Before we go any further, we have to mention a related case.
In January 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the Middle District of Florida issued a strikingly similar ruling in United States v. Ayala (Case No. 8:22-cr-369-KKM-AAS).
Judge Mizelle held that the federal ban under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) violates the Second Amendment when applied to ordinary U.S. post offices and their adjacent property, like:
- Customer parking lots
- Employee lots
- Regular non-restricted postal facilities
She distinguished these everyday spaces from courthouses, legislative buildings, and other government properties where special security considerations apply.
And importantly:
- Ayala is binding only in the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama).
- But it’s persuasive elsewhere, and Judge O’Connor did in fact cite it.
The Bondi court used Ayala to bolster the conclusion that federal firearm restrictions in ordinary post office settings lack historical support under Bruen. So, the Texas decision didn’t arise in a vacuum, it explicitly stood on the shoulders of the Florida ruling.
What Judge O’Connor’s Ruling Does
Back to our imaginary trip to the post office with packages under one arm, holiday stress under the other.
Because the plaintiffs didn’t specify the type of challenge they were raising, Judge O’Connor treated it as an “as-applied” challenge. That means the ruling is specifically about these plaintiffs and their members, not everyone in America.
Who is now permitted to carry a firearm in an ordinary post office under this decision?
- The plaintiffs
- Members of the Firearms Policy Coalition
- Members of the Second Amendment Foundation
Important exceptions still apply, including post offices:
- Inside military bases
- Located in federal buildings with separate firearm restrictions
So, no you can’t stroll into a secure federal courthouse with a handgun just because it houses a small postal counter.
Where the Ruling Applies
This decision applies only within the Fifth Circuit, which includes:
- Texas
- Louisiana
- Mississippi
Whether the federal government will appeal is still unknown.
Meanwhile, in the Eleventh Circuit, the Department of Justice recently declined to appeal the criminal case arising from Ayala, leaving Judge Mizelle’s ruling intact for Florida, Georgia, and Alabama federal courts.
This sets up a growing conflict among federal courts, especially in light of the Tenth Circuit upholding a post office gun ban back in 2015 (Bonidy vs. USPS), years before the Supreme Court overhauled Second Amendment analysis in the landmark Bruen decision.
What This Means Going Forward
With Ayala and Bondi now aligned, and earlier decisions like Bonidy standing on outdated legal reasoning, the writing is on the wall: A case about firearms in post offices is very likely to reach the Supreme Court.
And given the Court’s current approach to Second Amendment cases, and the lack of any historical tradition of firearm bans in 1791 or 1868, it’s widely expected that the justices may eventually strike down the ban nationwide.
But the Supreme Court moves slowly. It could take years before a case like this reaches them.
Bottom Line
For now, if you live in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, or Alabama, and you’re a member of the plaintiff organizations, you may find yourself legally able to carry a firearm while dropping off your holiday packages.
You’ll still have to wait in line, of course. There are some things even federal judges can’t fix.
Join Second Call Defense Today
If you are a concealed carry permit holder, protect yourself on the legal front. Join Second Call Defense today. Members get 24/7 critical response, attorney consultations, and financial support benefits that activate when seconds (and dollars) matter. Don’t let a defensive moment become a financial life sentence; join now and carry with confidence.