Trump Administration's Handgun Mail Plan Collides with State Gun Laws and Century-Old Safety Protections

What Happened

The Trump administration's Department of Justice has urged the U.S. Postal Service to overturn a 1927 law that prohibits mailing concealable firearms. In April 2024, USPS proposed a new rule that would allow anyone—not just licensed dealers—to mail pistols and revolvers. The DOJ argued the 1927 ban is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In response, Democratic attorneys general from approximately two dozen states sent a letter opposing the change, citing concerns about criminals and domestic abusers gaining easier access to firearms while circumventing state-mandated background checks and safety requirements.

Why It Matters: This proposal directly challenges the intersection of federal gun rights and state-level public safety regulations. It exposes a fundamental tension in American federalism: whether the Second Amendment protects a right to mail handguns in ways that bypass state licensing, background check, and mental health screening requirements. The proposal also raises practical concerns about law enforcement's ability to trace firearms used in crimes and enforce state-level domestic violence protections.

Connection to CGP Policy

The Common Good Party's gun policy explicitly recognizes that "the Second Amendment is real—and so is the evidence that licensing saves lives." This principle directly applies here. The evidence cited by state attorneys general—that background checks, safety courses, and mental health screening reduce gun violence—reflects decades of public health research. CGP's position acknowledges both constitutional rights AND empirical evidence about what works to prevent harm.

The USPS proposal exemplifies a false choice: either honor the Second Amendment or implement public safety measures. CGP rejects this framing. A licensing system—like those already used in Nevada and other states—can coexist with Second Amendment protections while ensuring that firearms don't reach people legally prohibited from possessing them (felons, domestic abusers, persons with certain mental health adjudications).

The proposal also raises federalism concerns aligned with CGP's emphasis on subsidiarity and local governance. State attorneys general argue they've built regulatory frameworks suited to their populations' needs, and that federal policy should not override those democratically-enacted protections. This reflects the principle that decisions should be made at the level closest to those affected by them.

The Public Safety Evidence

State attorneys general cite requirements like background checks and safety training. Research from institutions like the RAND Corporation and studies on state-level permit systems show that comprehensive background check systems and permitting requirements are associated with reductions in firearm homicides and suicides. The claim that licensing "saves lives" is not ideological assertion—it is supported by epidemiological evidence.

The concern about criminals and domestic abusers gaining access through mail is not speculative. Federal law already prohibits certain categories of people from possessing firearms. The question is whether a mail-based system without state-level verification can effectively enforce those prohibitions.