A brief recently filed by the Justice Department moving for summary judgment in a case challenging the ban on mailing firearms through the Post Office reveals that although the federal government may agree it is no longer enforcing the regulation, it is completely numb to the impositions and infringements imposed upon law-abiding citizens. Even more critically, it wants to avoid the court issuing an advisory opinion that would address the constitutionality of such a ban.
Shreve v. United States Postal Service challenged the ban on the mailing of concealable arms, and on December 18, 2025, a U.S. district judge enjoined enforcement of the statute. Just a couple of months later, the DOJ admitted that the 1927 prohibition was unconstitutional.
Yet, in its most recent filing on April 15 (which mostly argued that the issue is moot since they are not enforcing it, along with other jurisdictional issues), the DOJ stated:
Plaintiffs will not suffer significant hardship waiting for the regulation change. The U.S. Postal Service proposed its new rule on April 2 and comments from the public are due soon on May 4, 2026. The public has been unable to mail firearms through the U.S. Postal Service for almost the entirety of this nation’s history – waiting several more months for the U.S. Postal Service to issue its final, superseding rule will not cause catastrophic, irreparable harm.
It is difficult to imagine the DOJ being as hostile towards infringements on any other civil liberty, but nonetheless par for the course when it comes to those that directly affect rights protected under the Second Amendment.
The court filing also points out an obvious fatal error of a summary judgment-only approach. The plaintiffs, which include gun rights group Gun Owners of America and its legal arm, Gun Owners Foundation, have asked the court to issue an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of Section 1715, to prevent the policy flip-flop on enforcement that would inevitably come with regime change. However, the DOJ states, “thus there is no need for the Court to issue an advisory opinion on the legality of the current regulations when changes are likely forthcoming.” That statement is incredibly suspicious to gun owners who have seen the “trust us” approach fail numerous times before.
The 27-page brief was signed by Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, who has a track record of aggressively defending the DOJ’s position in favor of gun control measures.
