FORT WORTH, TX — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) have filed a strong opposition in federal court against the U.S. Government’s latest attempt to narrow a previously granted injunction that barred enforcement of the federal ban on carrying firearms at U.S. Post Offices. The organizations argue the government is disregarding Supreme Court precedent and trying to undo a clear judicial victory that recognized the Second Amendment rights of their members.

The opposition, filed November 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, comes in response to a motion from the Department of Justice asking the court to limit the scope of its injunction. The government contends that the court should apply its ruling only to the named individual plaintiffs — Gavin Pate and George Mandry — rather than to all SAF and FPC members nationwide.

In their filing, SAF and FPC argue that the injunction, which prevents the federal government from enforcing the post office gun ban against their members, is entirely consistent with long-standing Supreme Court decisions on associational standing. Specifically, they reference cases like Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission and UAW v. Brock, which allow organizations to seek judicial relief on behalf of their members without each individual needing to join the lawsuit.

“The Government is seeking the ability to enforce, as broadly as possible, even against members of the associations that brought this suit to vindicate their rights, a law that this Court has held unconstitutional,” the filing reads.

The DOJ claimed it could not comply with the order unless SAF and FPC disclosed full lists of their members — a move the plaintiffs see as both unnecessary and a potential infringement on privacy and freedom of association. The court’s injunction merely requires the government to refrain from enforcing the post office gun ban against SAF and FPC members, and plaintiffs argue that identifying as a member should be sufficient.

The filing also addresses the government’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which limited the use of so-called “universal injunctions.” Plaintiffs emphasize that their injunction is not universal but rather applies only to their members — a distinction that is critical in light of well-established jurisprudence allowing organizations to seek relief on behalf of their members.

SAF and FPC warn that accepting the DOJ’s argument would gut the very purpose of associational standing by forcing every member who may wish to benefit from a legal ruling to be individually named and identified when a lawsuit begins.

This case is a significant test of how far the federal government may go in trying to sidestep constitutional rulings through procedural means. SAF has made it clear that it will continue to resist any attempt to water down court victories that secure gun rights for lawful gun owners.

This legal battle highlights a growing trend of federal agencies seeking to reinterpret or restrict judicial relief following unfavorable constitutional rulings. SAF and FPC remain committed to ensuring that their members’ rights are fully recognized and protected.

For those interested in supporting the ongoing legal fight to secure gun rights, SAF and FPC encourage individuals to join their organizations at www.saf.org/join and www.firearmspolicy.org/join.