Texas judge says guns can't be banned from post offices

(CN) — The U.S. government cannot constitutionally keep people from carrying guns in and around post offices, a Texas federal judge ruled Tuesday, finding that such restrictions lack a historical basis.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen , which set a new standard for Second Amendment cases whereby gun restrictions have to be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition” in order to be constitutional.

He found that although mail carriers and post offices have faced threats since the founding, the government only banned firearm possession on postal property a little over 50 years ago.

“Even after the government started housing post offices in federal buildings in the early 1900s, it waited until 1964 to prohibit guns in federal buildings and 1972 to specifically prohibits firearms on postal property,” O’Connor wrote. “In other words, even though Congress and the founders were aware of the ‘general societal problem’ of violence towards the postal service, the prohibition against firearms in post offices or on postal property did not appear until nearly 200 years after the founding.”

In 2024, two gun rights groups, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as two individuals, challenged a federal law prohibiting possessing a “firearm or other dangerous weapon” in a “federal facility” — defined as “a building or part thereof owned or leased by the federal government, where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.”

They also challenged a U.S. Postal Service regulation that bans people from carrying or storing “firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives” on postal property. They argued these restrictions are unconstitutional as applied to firearms in post offices.

O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed and issued an injunction prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the law and regulation against the individual plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff organizations with regard to possessing firearms in post offices or on post office property.

The injunction doesn’t apply to post offices inside restricted access areas like military bases or in federally owned or leased buildings that also house other government functions where firearms would otherwise be prohibited.

O’Connor rejected the government’s argument that the history-and-tradition test doesn’t apply to firearm restrictions on property the federal government owns or leases, saying the government’s status as a property owner doesn’t allow it to “bypass parts of the Constitution it deems unfavorable.”

He also disagreed with the government’s argument that it should be able to ban guns in post offices because they are “sensitive places.” He found that post offices are not sensitive places akin to legislative assemblies, polling places and courthouses. The Supreme Court said in Bruen that it is likely constitutional to prohibit firearms in those places.

O’Connor said that the government had not provided historical evidence that guns were banned in all government buildings around the time the nation was founded.

“What is more likely, is that around the founding certain legislatures recognized that the activities taking place in legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses were central government functions involving weighty matters of public concern which might be influenced or disturbed by the presence of firearms,” O’Connor wrote. “Reasoning by analogy, it is hard to see how post offices, while important, rise to the same level of importance or provide the same weighty government functions as legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses.”

The Postal Service declined to comment on the ruling, and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs celebrated the ruling in a statement.

“As we’ve said all along, governments cannot ban weapons in unsecured public spaces, full stop,” Combs said. “For too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps. That ends here. The Second Amendment simply does not permit governments to invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ wherever they please.”

Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut also praised the ruling.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” Kraut said 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.”