Federal Courts Split on Post Office Gun Ban as Connecticut Judge Upholds Carry Restriction

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HARTFORD, CT – A federal judge in Connecticut has upheld the ban on carrying firearms inside United States post offices, creating a direct split among federal courts on a Second Amendment question that may ultimately need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

As reported by The Reload, U.S. District Judge Vernon D. Oliver ruled on March 25, 2026 in Nastri v. Bondi, finding that the federal post office carry ban does not violate the Second Amendment. Judge Oliver concluded the ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of restricting firearms in crowded public spaces.

The ruling stands in contrast to decisions from federal judges in Texas and Florida, both of whom reached the opposite conclusion. Those courts found the ban unconstitutional under the standard established by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.

The Case and the Plaintiffs

The lawsuit was brought by David Nastri, a Connecticut attorney who has held a concealed carry permit for approximately 30 years, and We The Patriots USA, a nonprofit focused on constitutional rights. Nastri rents a post office box and visits his local post office once or twice a month. He argued he should be able to carry his firearm for self-defense during those visits without risking federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Section 930(a), the 1988 law that bans firearms in federal facilities.

Judge Oliver, a Biden appointee, acknowledged that post offices did not have firearm restrictions at the time of the founding. However, he argued that is not dispositive because dedicated postal buildings essentially did not exist then. Early post offices operated out of private homes, taverns, and general stores. The judge concluded that modern post offices, which see hundreds of millions of customer visits annually, are fundamentally different institutions.

How the Judge Reached His Conclusion

Judge Oliver relied heavily on a historical tradition of restricting firearms in crowded public spaces. He pointed to the 1328 Statute of Northampton in England, Founding-era statutes in Virginia and North Carolina, and Reconstruction-era laws in Texas, Missouri, and Tennessee that restricted firearms in public gatherings, markets, and places of assembly.

He concluded that today’s post offices, with an estimated 1.97 billion annual visits when adjusted for foot traffic that does not involve a transaction, qualify as the kind of high-traffic public spaces where such restrictions have historically been permitted. The ruling leaned on Second Circuit precedents from cases involving New York City’s restrictions on firearms in Times Square and the public transit system.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Cameron Atkinson, sharply criticized the ruling, stating that courts are ignoring the framework established in Bruen and Heller. He said his team plans to appeal.

More from USA Carry:

Where This Fits in the Broader Legal Fight

We previously covered the Texas ruling in this ongoing legal fight, where U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor found the post office carry ban unconstitutional and extended an injunction to all members of the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. That injunction currently prevents enforcement of the ban against covered members, though the case remains on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.

The Connecticut ruling now creates a formal circuit split. If the appeals courts in the Second and Fifth Circuits reach opposite conclusions, the stage could be set for the Supreme Court to take up the question and issue a definitive ruling.

What This Means for Armed Citizens

For now, the practical picture is complicated. FPC and SAF members in most of the country retain injunction protection from the Texas ruling, but that protection is not final and the case is still being litigated. Armed citizens outside those organizations remain subject to the federal ban in most jurisdictions.

The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for self-defense. That right does not stop at the parking lot of a government building. Courts that continue to chip away at that right by expanding the definition of sensitive places are doing exactly what Bruen warned against. The circuit split created by this ruling makes a Supreme Court showdown on post office carry more likely, and that fight is worth watching closely.