The Department of Justice has adopted a significant new interpretation of federal firearms law, concluding that a commonly cited statute does not prohibit people from lawfully carrying constitutionally protected firearms into post offices when they are carried for legitimate purposes such as self-defense.
In a Wednesday memorandum to Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel examined 18 U.S.C. § 930, the federal statute restricting firearms and other dangerous weapons inside federal facilities.
The crucial language, according to OLC, is an exception Congress placed directly into the statute.
“Congress has exempted the ‘lawful carrying’ of firearms or other dangerous weapons ‘incident to hunting or other lawful purposes,’” the memorandum states.
OLC concluded that carrying a firearm for self-defense falls within that exception when a person enters a government building that is open to the public.
“Because carrying arms for self-defense when entering a building held open to the public is a paradigmatic ‘lawful purpose,’ that exception permits the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms in post offices,” the office wrote.
The interpretation potentially removes the threat of criminal prosecution under Section 930 for people who otherwise lawfully carry firearms for self-defense in post offices.
It also comes after federal courts have wrestled with the constitutionality of restrictions on firearms at Postal Service facilities.
The Trump administration signaled its position in July when the Justice Department dropped an appeal before the Fifth Circuit involving a district court decision against the postal carry restriction. That left standing a nationwide injunction issued in September 2025 blocking enforcement of the challenged ban.
The legal landscape surrounding firearms restrictions has changed substantially since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, courts evaluating Second Amendment restrictions must examine whether regulations are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
More recently, the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford further affected litigation over where firearms can be prohibited.
But Wednesday’s OLC memorandum is notable because the Justice Department did not rely solely on a constitutional challenge. It concluded that the text of the existing federal statute itself contains an exception broad enough to cover lawful self-defense carry.
That distinction could prove important.
If Congress already exempted lawful carrying for “other lawful purposes,” the government does not necessarily need to reach the separate constitutional question of whether a categorical post-office ban violates the Second Amendment.
