Before you read what I say next, you first need to read this article:
The Department of Justice has officially walked away from its appeal in one of the most important Second Amendment cases involving ordinary federal property. That’s a major win, but gun owners should understand the ruling before changing how they carry.
On July 23, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the government’s appeal in Firearms Policy Coalition v. Blanche at the government’s request. Chief Judge Reed O’Connor’s permanent injunction therefore remains in place.
The federal government may not enforce the challenged post office firearm restrictions against the individual plaintiffs or any present or future member of the Firearms Policy Coalition, or the Second Amendment Foundation, when they possess or carry firearms in an “ordinary” United States Post Office or on surrounding postal property covered by the order.
The federal ban hasn’t disappeared for everyone. Every post office isn’t covered, and other laws still matter.
Etc., etc.
Fine, all good stuff, but…I haven’t set foot inside a Post Office building for about five years, so it’s irrelevant to me.
However, even back in the day when I did have to go to a USPS facility, I always carried a gun, anyway. At that time, the perennial headlines were all about some postal worker getting fed up with his employer, and shooting the place up. It happened so often that it gave rise to the term “going postal” for said kind of action.
One of the decisions I made very early on in life was that I was never going to be a helpless victim. Obviously, that attitude was going to run afoul of government policy, because they’ve always wanted to be the only ones to a.) carry guns and b.) handle lawlessness.
I reject both of those wishes, because a.) I don’t trust government agents with guns, especially when they’re the only ones with guns — ask any former resident of a totalitarian society how that works out; and b.) well, we all know what happens when some scrote decides to break the law — e.g. in this case a postal worker — and starts airing his grievances with a 9mm handgun. In that case, the government agents won’t be on hand to end the violence immediately — that doesn’t even happen in prisons, let alone out in public — and you are then at the mercy of the guy with the only gun in the place.
Well, screw that. So I’ve always carried a gun inside places like these*, even when they have their stupid little regulations that forbid it, because if there’s only going to be one guy with a gun in that place, I’d far rather it was me. (Everyone’s safe, because I’m not going to start shooting, for any reason.) I don’t even mind being around when a lot of people are carrying guns, because 99.99% of those people are law-abiding citizens, like me. But if there’s one guy in there who wants to start a little spree killing, or robbery or whatever, I sure as hell am not going to be at his complete mercy because I was Mr. Law-Abiding Citizen who obeyed the silly “don’t do that” law or regulation.
As I said in the title, this is all very well and good, but even if the government had prevailed and had the injunction lifted, I’d still carry my 1911 into a Post Office. Concealed, of course, so no one could see it, and therefore no harm, no foul: (their) ignorance in this case definitely being in the bliss category.
*the exception being federal buildings like courthouses or tax offices — I kinda see their point, even though I don’t agree with it, and anyway, they have things like metal detectors and armed guards to enforce it, and I’m not an idiot.
I’m glad, though, that the judges decided that calling a Post Office a “federal building” was a step too far, never mind that it was extended to their bloody parking lots. And I’m also glad that Trump’s DoJ is not going to fight the injunction, so they can stop wasting taxpayer money and use it instead to do something about actual criminals — although I’m not holding my breath while waiting for Ilhan Omar’s perp walk.
That injunction applies only to FPC & SAF members.
Yeah, for the first time a fucking judge understood the limit of his power and issued an injunction that only applied to the limits of the case before him. That should be the standard by which other judges are held.
For too long every piss-ant federal judge out there thought he could reverse Presidential policy and order the entire country around. Of course, the only time federal judges do respect their limited power is when it’s a win for our side, which sucks. But it’s a start.
Also, not saying what I do, but Kim makes a good point above.
Sure.
And the first non-FPC & SAF member to be arrested and charged for carrying into a Post Office will have his attorney point to this case as his defense and then this will apply to everyone.
For me, it depends on which post office, one being not much different from a drugstore cashier’s counter, where I feel and do like Kim, but the other one has metal detectors, but no security persons, that customers must pass through to get to the counter. Being we are in the age of surveillance, I won’t take a chance of those detectors going off AND there is a camera to record me.