Two gun groups have filed a brief in response to the government’s efforts to limit the scope of an injunction in the U.S. Post Office carry ban challenge, Firearms Policy Coalition v. Bondi.
Originally filed in June 2024, the lawsuit challenges the ban on carrying firearms in U.S. Post Offices and on postal property. The gun groups are the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and two private citizens, Gavin Pate and George Mandry.
In September 2025, the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of the gunowners’ rights groups and gun owners and declared the carry ban on post office property unconstitutional, enjoining its enforcement against FPC’s and SAF’s members.
In response to the ruling, the government filed a motion to limit the scope of the injunction to only the named individual plaintiffs and to members of the gun groups — but only to those who were members when the complaint was originally filed and who have been identified and verified.
“President Trump’s DOJ is again using tyrannical legal tactics to gut a major constitutional victory and continue enforcing federal gun control laws—even those already declared unconstitutional by federal courts,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Instead of complying with the court’s order in this case, the Trump DOJ is spending time and money to keep people disarmed and defenseless. The Trump DOJ must stop wasting taxpayer money defending illegal gun control laws and start honoring the Bill of Rights—and their promise to protect the Second Amendment rights of the American people.”
FPC and SAF opposed the government’s motion to limit the permanent injunction’s effects to just Pate and Mandry, writing in a November 18 brief, “In this case, two national membership organizations that work to promote and defend the rights protected by the Second Amendment established that the federal ban on carrying firearms in post offices and on post office property is unconstitutional.
“Now the Government, in a bid to render that victory practically meaningless for all the members of those organizations except for the two who participated in this suit directly, seeks to narrow the scope of the injunctive relief this Court has ordered to exclude from coverage anyone whom the organizations have not identified to the Government as a member and anyone who was not a member at the time the complaint was filed.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said, “The critical thing to remember here is that the government is fighting tooth and nail to continue enforcing an unconstitutional law against as many people as possible. The DOJ’s position that it would be ‘impossible’ for it to know who was protected by the injunction without a membership list is just plain silly. If officials want to know if someone found to be carrying at a post office is a SAF member, they can simply ask.”
“When we file a case, we do so on behalf of all SAF members,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The carry ban on U.S. Post Office property affects countless peaceable citizens nationwide who visit post offices every day to conduct their business. A Federal District Judge has declared the law unconstitutional, and yet the government’s knee-jerk reaction is to continue enforcing it against as many Americans as possible. Decades of settled case law says that it’s wrong.”
