In a move that underscores the ongoing battle between states' rights and federal overreach, attorneys general from New Jersey, New York, and Delaware have stepped into the fray to prop up a 1927 relic of gun control. Their intervention in Shreve v. USPS comes after the Department of Justice wisely stepped aside, refusing to defend an outdated prohibition on mailing handguns and other concealable firearms through the U.S. Postal Service. This isn't about public safety—it's about preserving restrictions that no longer square with the Supreme Court's clear directives on the Second Amendment.
The law in question dates back nearly a century, born in an era when the federal government was expanding its reach into everyday commerce without the benefit of modern constitutional scrutiny. Today, after Bruen, such restrictions must be justified by historical analogues from the Founding era or Reconstruction—not by vague appeals to "public safety" from officials in states already notorious for their hostility to lawful gun ownership. These multistate AGs are essentially asking the courts to ignore that framework and treat a Prohibition-era policy as sacrosanct.
Why This Defense Falls Flat
Proponents claim the ban prevents firearms from falling into the wrong hands during transit. Yet data consistently shows that criminals obtain guns through straw purchases, theft, or illegal trafficking—not by ordering them via certified mail from a licensed dealer. Law-abiding citizens and businesses, by contrast, face real burdens when shipping firearms for repair, transfer between FFLs, or even moving across state lines. The restriction functions more as an inconvenience to the responsible gun owner than a meaningful barrier to crime.
By intervening after the DOJ declined, these attorneys general reveal their true priority: keeping as many regulatory obstacles in place as possible, even when the federal government itself recognizes the constitutional problems. New Jersey's Jennifer Davenport and her counterparts are doubling down on policies that treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right, subject to whatever modern policy preferences their states favor.
Implications for Gun Owners Nationwide
If the intervention succeeds, it could lock in barriers that complicate lawful firearm commerce for millions of Americans. Responsible owners who rely on the mail for transfers, parts, or interstate moves would continue facing arbitrary limits rooted in 1920s thinking. Meanwhile, the black market remains untouched, as it always has under these kinds of rules.
The better path forward is clear: allow the case to proceed without artificial state intervention and let the courts apply the historical-tradition test the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed. Firearm owners deserve a system that respects both public safety through targeted enforcement and the fundamental right to keep and bear arms without century-old shipping handcuffs.
References
- https://www.njoag.gov/ag-davenport-states-defend-crucial-federal-gun-law-that-protects-public-safety/
- https://www.njoag.gov/ag-davenport-states-oppose-u-s-postal-service-rule-flouting-federal-gun-law/
- https://news.delaware.gov/2026/03/03/ag-jennings-intervenes-in-usps-case-that-would-allow-guns-to-be-mailed-with-virtually-no-limits/
- https://delawarelive.com/states-move-to-defend-federal-gun-mailing-ban-as-debate-over-second-amendment-intensifies/
- https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2025/10/litigation-highlight-plaintiffs-file-second-amendment-challenge-to-federal-ban-on-mailing-firearms