The U.S. Postal Service’s move to allow handguns in regular mail for the first time in nearly a century exposes a sharp clash between constitutional arguments for gun rights and fears that logistics policy could quietly gut state gun safety regimes.

A century-old ban meets a new constitutional reading

Liberal-leaning coverage frames the proposal as a dramatic reversal of a 1927 law that barred USPS from mailing concealable firearms except from licensed dealers, a measure originally designed “to curb crime.”¹ In this view, the key story is federal deregulation overriding hard‑won state controls on access to guns.

CBS notes that in January the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel labeled the 1927 ban “unconstitutional,” arguing that if Congress operates a parcel service, “the Second Amendment precludes it from refusing to ship constitutionally protected firearms to and from law-abiding citizens, even if they are not licensed manufacturers or dealers.”¹ USPS says its April 2 proposal is simply meant “to conform with” that opinion and that it will require handguns, like long guns already allowed in the mail, to be unloaded and securely packaged.¹

Conservative-leaning reporting instead highlights the symbolic weight of dismantling “the oldest federal firearms law in existence,” casting the move as a long‑delayed legal correction rather than a safety rollback.²

States’ rights vs. gun rights

Democratic attorneys general from two dozen states argue the rule would “undo the work” of states like Nevada, which tightened background checks after the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, by making it easier to circumvent state‑level safeguards via the federal mail stream.¹ From this angle, the conflict is less about postal rules than about federal preemption enabling “criminals and abusers” to obtain guns despite state efforts.

Conservative coverage acknowledges “fierce criticism from both sides of the gun debate” but emphasizes that handguns are “constitutionally protected firearms” and presents the change as aligning USPS operations with Supreme Court–era Second Amendment jurisprudence.²

The debate thus splits not over whether risks exist, but over which principle prevails: state-driven gun control infrastructure or a maximalist reading of federal obligations to accommodate individual gun rights—even in the mail.