Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and two citizens secured an injunction concerning carry at post offices. The United States Postal Service gave Bearing Arms their comment on the ruling.
Previously reported on September 30, 2025, FPC, SAF, et.al. received a favorable ruling in Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. The case challenged the federal law that made post offices and their property so-called “sensitive locations.” Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment” and enjoined the government from enforcing the prohibition against plaintiffs. There have been no public statements from the United States Postal Service, however Bearing Arms did secure a comment from them for publication.
The opinion comes from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. There was nothing in the order that binds it geographically, therefore it’s presumed a nationwide injunction. However, the order stipulates it’s only valid for members of FPC and SAF.
There’s been mixed understanding over what’s going on with nationwide injunctions. Pundits have criticized organizations for not seeking relief for all persons, beyond their membership. In the case Trump v. CASA, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of how these federal injunctions would work.
Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett said: “The question whether Congress has granted federal courts the authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive or legislative policy plainly warrants our review.” Barrett further noted that, “A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.”
Until the topic of nationwide injunctions is fully litigated, beyond this interlocutory status, it’s likely we’re going to see severely limited relief at the district courts and quite possibly the circuit courts when challenging federal laws, orders, and regulations.
Pundits unhappy with what level of relief Second Amendment advocates/activists — either organizationally or as individuals — should place the blame squarely on Trump v. CASA, an unintended consequence now attacking the Second Amendment movement. (This attitude towards injunctive relief was raised by Firearms Policy Coalition during the Big Beautiful Bill debates — a concern that’s gone underreported. And Cam had a great conversation with FPC President Brandon Combs concerning the relief issues with Reese v. ATF and it’s worth listening to.)
The Second Amendment Foundation posted on x a statement clarifying what they believe the ruling means.
“Our reading of the ruling and accompanying order is that the injunction applies to post offices nationally for all individuals who are members of SAF and/or FPC,” the post said. “However, it is best to consult with a lawyer in your area to confirm the scope of the injunction covers the post office you frequent.”
Bearing Arms queried the United States Postal Service on their stance on the order and how they were going to proceed. USPS Senior Public Relations Representative Felicia Lott responded to Bearing Arms’ request for comment.
“The Postal Service is aware of the recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas regarding the ban on firearms possession on postal property, which enjoins enforcement of the ban at certain Post Offices, and the surrounding Post Office property, with respect to certain postal customers,” Lott wrote. “The Postal Service is currently analyzing the court’s decision and taking necessary steps to implement the injunction.”
For those who live in New Jersey, Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office was contacted about the ruling. Platkin was asked if there were any directives going out to local law enforcement, if there was going to be a public information campaign about this situation, and asked how they were planning on handling the ruling. “The office doesn’t have a comment,” was the one-line, unsigned response to Bearing Arms’ request for comment.
As it stands, the current status of this injunction appears to be nationwide but only applicable to Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation members. Joining these organizations now will presumably also protect you via the injunction regardless of when you’ve joined — join SAF HERE and FPC HERE. It’s not known whether or not further appeals are forthcoming from either side of the debate. And, as clearly outlined here, the United States Postal Service is aware of the ruling, but has not committed to giving advice on what it means to postal customers.
Read the full article here
