A common question that comes up here is, "Can I ship a black powder pistol or handgun through the USPS?"
The answer is no.
There is then always a lot of debate around this. A lot of people are confused between the Federal definition of a firearm and USPS postal regulations.
These are the USPS regulations, as updated February 9, 2023:
https://pe.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/Pub52/pub52.pdf
Go to page 99.
Alternatively, you can go here:
https://pe.usps.com/text/pub52/pub52c4_008.htm
View attachment 243321
What this means is that you cannot ship "antique firearms meeting the description of a handgun." via the USPS. This includes replicas. The USPS doesn't consider antique firearms to be firearms
unless they meet the definition of a handgun. Then they consider it a firearm.
What it also means is that you cannot take the gun apart and ship the pieces as "parts" to get around this regulation. You can't ship the frame or lock for a handgun, either.
Regardless of what the federal government may define a firearm to be,
USPS postal regulations do not allow the shipping of any kind of handgun.
There are exceptions for certain government employees, and certain license holders. But your average Joe cannot ship any kind of handgun through USPS.
I posted these same regs mid day yesterday so I'm going to presume that's why this thread got started.
As I stated at the time, the regs appear to be intentionally cloudy.
I'd like to call attention to what the regs say as the sentences are structured.
First off, pay attention to the definitions and stay on track.
Here's the definition of a firearm, not something that goes bang and shoots a bullet.
- Firearm means any device, including a starter gun, which will, or is designed to, or may readily be converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or any destructive device; but the term shall not include antique firearms (except antique firearms meeting the description of a handgun or of a firearm capable of being concealed on a person).
- Firearm frame or receiver is the part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel. Frames and receivers usually (but not always) include the firearm serial number and are usually considered to be the regulated component of a firearm.
Now let's parse the exceptions.
We have two parts there.
A. Antique firearms meeting the description of a handgun.
B. A firearm capable of being concealed on a person.
Let's take "A" first. Does a percussion revolver as supplied by the various replica manufacturers meet the description of an "antique firearm" as defined by 431.3?
I'd have to say it does.
But, is that antique firearm "meeting the description of a handgun" under 431.2?
Quoting from 431.2, a handgun (including pistols and revolvers) means any
firearm which has a short stock, and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand and
subject to 431.1.
So go back and look at the definition of a "firearm" under 431.1.
Is the percussion revolver a "firearm" or is it a "antique firearm". It would appear to me that it is specifically categorized as an "antique firearm" rather than a "firearm" so to my understanding that means that it does not meet the description of a handgun.
After making my lobes jump through those hoops what it says to me is "A" is not prohibitive of mailing percussion revolvers.
So how about "B". A firearm capable of being concealed on a person."?
Well, there's that "firearm" again and it kicks me right back over to the requirements of 431.1.
Does a percussion revolver become prohibited by its relatively diminutive size?
I'd have to say no specifically because the regs say what a "firearm" is and the percussion revolver isn't it.
Now, I said all that to say this. Those regs are about as clear as mud and it would appear to me that it's intentional. If I was a properly accredited shyster I'd likely as not be able to point out how my carefully rendered interpretation of those regs is completely wrong. And that's why I brought it up and posted those regs yesterday.
