Key Takeaways
- A Texas federal court ruled that the ban on carrying firearms at post offices is unconstitutional and applies to all current and future members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.
- The ruling expands protections beyond the original plaintiffs, preventing enforcement of the carry ban against covered members.
- The Department of Justice sought to limit the injunction’s scope, but the court denied this request, emphasizing broad protections.
- This ongoing case is currently on appeal, meaning the ruling is not a final resolution.
- The decision reinforces the Second Amendment as a fundamental civil right, allowing lawful gun owners to carry for self-defense in everyday activities like visiting a post office.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
FORT WORTH, TX – A federal district court judge in Texas has ruled that an injunction blocking enforcement of the federal post office carry ban applies to all current and future members of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition.
The decision follows a previous ruling from the Northern District of Texas in September, which found the ban on carrying firearms at post offices unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement against the named plaintiffs, including SAF and its members.
After that ruling, the Department of Justice filed a motion seeking to narrow the scope of the injunction. The government asked the court to limit protections only to specifically identified individuals and members who were part of the case when it was originally filed.
The court denied that request. It confirmed that the injunction applies broadly to all current and future members of both SAF and FPC, preventing enforcement of the carry ban against them at most ordinary post office locations.
According to the Firearms Policy Coalition, the ruling came in FPC v. Bondi, where the court previously held that peaceable Americans must be allowed to carry firearms in post offices. The organization stated that the injunction will continue to apply to all current and future FPC members following the court’s order issued on March 17, 2026.
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut called the decision a major win for members nationwide. He stated there was never a constitutional basis for disarming individuals who simply need to access a post office.
SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb also criticized the government’s position, noting that it attempted to continue enforcing a law that had already been declared unconstitutional. He said the court’s ruling aligns with established legal principles regarding injunctions.
Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs also welcomed the decision. He said the ruling reflects both the law and common sense, and called on the government to stop attempting to limit constitutional protections through litigation.
The lawsuit was originally filed in June 2024. Plaintiffs include members of FPC, SAF, and two private citizens. The case is currently on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.
More from USA Carry:
While this ruling expands legal protection for SAF and FPC members, it does not automatically eliminate all real-world risk.
The injunction prevents enforcement of the post office carry ban against covered members, but the case is still ongoing and currently on appeal. That means this is not a final, nationwide resolution of the issue.
In practice, not all law enforcement officers or postal employees may be aware of the ruling or understand how it applies. Even for covered members, an encounter could still lead to questioning or temporary detention until the legal situation is sorted out.
For armed citizens, this is an important distinction. Legal protection under an injunction often applies after the fact, not necessarily in the moment. That makes awareness and judgment just as important as ever when navigating locations that have historically been treated as restricted.
The expansion of the injunction highlights how legal victories can extend beyond the original plaintiffs. Once a law is found to violate the Constitution, courts are often unwilling to allow continued enforcement against others in similar situations.
For lawful gun owners, this ruling reinforces that the right to carry for self-defense does not disappear during everyday activities like visiting a post office. Decisions like this continue to affirm that the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right that cannot be restricted without clear constitutional justification.
