A federal judge in Texas has confirmed that his injunction against the post office gun ban extends to all current and future members of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, rejecting the government's attempt to narrow the ruling's reach.

As reported by Breitbart, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Reed O'Connor upheld the September 2025 injunction on March 17, 2026, ruling that the ban on carrying firearms in post offices cannot be enforced against members of either organization.

The government had fought to shrink the injunction down to a handful of named plaintiffs. O'Connor said no.

The Government Tried to Gut Its Own Loss

The original injunction, issued in September 2025, blocked enforcement of the post office carry ban against SAF and Firearms Policy Coalition members. Rather than accept the ruling, the government filed a motion to limit the scope of the injunction to only the named individual plaintiffs and to members who had already joined when the original complaint was filed and who had been "identified and verified."

Read that again. The government's position was that your constitutional rights depend on whether a federal bureaucracy has personally verified your membership card.

O'Connor rejected the argument and confirmed the injunction applies "to all present and future members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and Second Amendment Foundation." That language matters. It means joining SAF or FPC today grants you the same protection as the original plaintiffs. The government cannot simply wait out a membership roster and resume enforcement against newcomers.

SAF Leaders Respond

SAF executive director Adam Kraut framed the ruling as a vindication of what should have been obvious from the start:

"There was never a constitutional justification to disarm people who simply need to go to the post office. Despite the government's attempt to continue to enforce this unconstitutional law against as many people as possible, the court today followed the law and confirmed that all current and future SAF members are covered by the injunction against the enforcement of this ban."

SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb echoed the sentiment, noting the court saw through the government's strategy to limit the damage.

"We are heartened by today's ruling and that the court was not persuaded by the government's argument."

Gottlieb also pointed to a practical implication that gun rights organizations have long understood: membership in groups that litigate on your behalf carries tangible legal benefits. He called inclusion in injunctions like these "one of the best reasons to be a SAF member," adding that the ruling is "consistent with well-settled case law."

The Bigger Picture for Gun Rights

The post office carry ban has always occupied a strange place in American firearms law. The federal government operates post offices as public buildings where millions of Americans conduct routine business: buying stamps, mailing packages, picking up certified letters. Treating every one of those visits as an occasion to strip a citizen of a constitutional right was never a serious legal position. It was bureaucratic inertia dressed up as security policy.

What makes this ruling significant beyond the immediate case is the scope question. Federal agencies have developed a pattern of responding to unfavorable court rulings by trying to minimize who benefits from them. Lose the case? Fine. Just argue the injunction should apply to as few people as possible. It is a strategy designed to win through attrition what the government could not win on the merits.

O'Connor's ruling cuts that strategy off at the knees, at least in this case. By extending protection to future members, he ensured the government cannot simply outlast the current membership rolls and resume enforcement. The constitutional principle either holds or it doesn't. It doesn't expire when someone's dues lapse or when a new member signs up after the filing date.

What Comes Next

The government could appeal. Given its attempt to narrow the injunction rather than defend the ban on the merits, that path seems likely. But the legal terrain has shifted considerably since the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen redefined how courts evaluate firearms restrictions. Historical tradition and text are the standard now, and the government will struggle to find a historical analogue for banning arms in a building where people buy postage.

For now, SAF and FPC members can enter a post office without checking their Second Amendment rights at the door. The government wanted that circle drawn as small as possible. The court drew it wide open.