My Right To Carry

Current News

Non-Resident Carry Lawsuits Face a Tougher Road After Early Post-Bruen Wins

My Right To Carry News Team

May 31, 2026

Gun-rights groups have enjoyed a strong run in court since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, particularly when challenging broad, across-the-board state restrictions that blocked non-residents from carrying firearms. Those early cases helped dismantle blanket state-level bans that treated out-of-state permit holders as categorically disqualified, and advocates largely moved from one win to the next.

That momentum is now meeting a more complicated legal environment. Rather than dealing with straightforward prohibitions that were easier to target, the next wave of litigation is running into a new obstacle that makes expanding non-resident carry less predictable and more difficult than the fights that came immediately after Bruen.

The practical reality is that as the clearest, most sweeping bans fall, what remains tends to be more layered and harder to challenge cleanly. When a state no longer enforces an outright rule against all non-residents, disputes often shift to narrower policies and administrative frameworks—areas where courts may be less willing to issue broad rulings and where outcomes can hinge on details.

For supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, that means the post-Bruen “unbeaten streak” is unlikely to translate automatically to the next stage of the campaign. The legal strategy that worked against blanket bans does not always map neatly onto more incremental restrictions, even if the end goal—expanded ability for non-residents to lawfully carry—remains the same.

The result is a tougher fight ahead for gun-rights advocates seeking broader recognition of carry rights beyond state lines. After a period defined by clear victories against sweeping state policies, the coming battles are set to be more contested, more technical, and less certain in court.
Austintown Police Call May 13 Car-Wash Shooting Justified After Armed Attack on Vehicle

My Right To Carry News Team

May 30, 2026

A fatal shooting near a car wash on New Road in Austintown on Wednesday morning, May 13, 2026, is being classified by local police as a justified act of self-defense. Officials said their review indicates the person who fired did so in response to an immediate, violent threat.

Investigators pointed to surveillance footage that captured the sequence leading up to the gunfire. According to police, the man who was killed was 30-year-old Zachary Fisher, who was pursuing his ex-girlfriend’s vehicle.

Authorities said the video shows Fisher chasing the vehicle and then wrecking his truck near the location. Immediately afterward, police reported, he moved to confront the occupied vehicle and began an assault while armed.

Inside the targeted vehicle were two young children and a male passenger, according to police. Officials said the armed attack on the vehicle occurred with the children still inside, escalating the danger to everyone present.

Police have stated that, based on the evidence they have reviewed, the shooting is being treated as a clear-cut case of self-defense. From a public-safety and individual-rights standpoint, the incident underscores why lawful self-protection is a fundamental last resort when a violent aggressor forces a life-or-death situation on innocent people.
NSSF Plans Legal Fight Over Connecticut Ban on Striker-Fired Handgun Sales

My Right To Carry News Team

May 30, 2026

Connecticut has enacted a new restriction on handgun sales after Gov. Ned Lamont signed a measure that blocks the sale of many striker-fired pistols within the state. The change targets a type of handgun that is widely owned and commonly sold through lawful channels.

NSSF, which describes itself as the firearm industry’s trade association, says it intends to pursue a legal challenge to the Connecticut prohibition. The organization announced its plans from Washington, D.C., framing the issue as a direct dispute over whether the state can bar a broadly used category of firearms.

At the center of the conflict is the scope of the ban: NSSF argues the law goes beyond regulating misuse and instead eliminates access to an entire class of handguns that are legally manufactured and commonly chosen by ordinary buyers. From a limited-government perspective, that kind of blanket policy treats responsible residents the same as criminals, even though the measure applies to people who are attempting to purchase firearms through legal, regulated sales.

NSSF also contends that the new statute violates the Second Amendment rights of Connecticut residents who follow the law. In its view, the state’s action represents an unconstitutional infringement by preventing citizens from purchasing certain handguns solely because of their design category, rather than because of any unlawful conduct.

The group’s planned court fight is aimed at overturning the sales ban and restoring legal access to these striker-fired handguns in Connecticut. For supporters of individual liberty, the case is expected to test whether state officials can prohibit a popular, lawfully produced type of firearm in a way that restricts lawful ownership for everyone.
Machine Guns Gain Momentum as GOP Grassroots Reject Establishment Republicans

My Right To Carry News Team

May 29, 2026

Supporters of the Second Amendment are pointing to a shifting legal and political landscape that they say is starting to favor individual firearms rights more broadly, including ongoing debates that touch even the most tightly regulated categories of weapons. In their view, the public conversation is moving away from automatic deference to federal restrictions and toward a harder look at whether those limits match the Constitution’s text and history.

That shift is unfolding alongside a growing frustration on the Right with Republican officeholders who campaign as conservatives and then govern like cautious managers of the status quo. Gun-rights activists and many grassroots voters argue that half-measures and procedural delays have kept meaningful reforms from advancing, even when Republicans have held influence in Congress or state governments.

At the center of the latest round of commentary is the idea that the political coalition backing gun rights is becoming less willing to tolerate what it sees as performative support. The argument is that voters are increasingly focused on results—court fights, legislative follow-through, and clear opposition to new gun-control proposals—rather than endorsements, press releases, or ambiguous talking points.

Within that same framing, the strict federal rules surrounding machine guns have become a symbolic marker in the broader dispute about how far firearm regulations should go. Advocates contend that if the Constitution protects commonly held arms, then lawmakers and courts should be prepared to revisit long-standing regulatory schemes instead of treating them as permanently settled simply because they have existed for decades.

The political takeaway being emphasized is that establishment-minded Republicans who hesitate to push aggressively on gun policy may face more pushback in primaries and internal party contests. Activists believe the energy is increasingly on the side of candidates who are willing to take clearer positions, challenge federal overreach, and treat the right to keep and bear arms as a core liberty issue rather than a bargaining chip.
DOJ’s Missing Gun Rights Restoration Path Leaves Law-Abiding Americans in Limbo

My Right To Carry News Team

May 29, 2026

The Department of Justice has produced a new development tied to the restoration of gun rights, but it is not the outcome many Second Amendment advocates have been anticipating. For activists focused on a clear, workable way for people to regain firearm rights after losing them under federal law, the latest signal from DOJ does not appear to deliver that long-awaited plan.

At the center of the frustration is the question of when, or whether, DOJ will put forward a functional rights-restoration mechanism that people can actually use. Supporters of gun rights have been watching for a concrete policy or procedure that would allow qualified individuals to have their rights recognized again. Instead, the update that exists does not match the type of forward movement many expected to see.

The situation matters because, in practice, “rights restoration” is not an abstract talking point—it affects real people who believe they should have a defined process to regain constitutionally protected liberties once they have satisfied legal penalties or otherwise become eligible. From a libertarian and conservative perspective, a system that removes a fundamental right should not be allowed to operate indefinitely without an accessible, predictable route to restoration.

The new information indicates DOJ activity in the area, yet it still leaves unanswered the basic question raised by gun-rights proponents: where is the actual restoration plan? Without a clear program, timelines, or public-facing standards, the promise of restoring rights can feel more like a concept than a functioning part of the justice system.

For those following the issue, the takeaway is that DOJ’s recent movement does not appear to provide the specific relief many advocates have demanded. Until the department puts a usable, transparent framework in place, the debate is likely to continue—especially among Americans who see the Second Amendment as a core civil liberty that should not be treated as permanently forfeited without a fair path back.
Virginia Prosecutors in Four Counties Say They Won’t Bring Charges Under New “Assault Weapons” Ban

My Right To Carry News Team

May 28, 2026

Several elected Commonwealth’s Attorneys in Virginia are publicly signaling they do not intend to pursue criminal cases under the state’s new “assault weapons” restrictions once the measures begin. Their announcements come ahead of the July 1, 2026 effective date for the legislation.

The prosecutors involved represent at least four counties: Spotsylvania, Powhatan, Pulaski, and Smyth. Each has stated that their offices will decline to prosecute alleged violations tied to the new ban, framing the decision as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a lack of awareness about what the new statutes will require.

The laws at the center of the dispute are SB 749 and HB 217. According to the prosecutors’ statements, they expect that when these laws take effect, charges submitted under those provisions will be rejected by their offices, meaning cases would not move forward in their jurisdictions based on those statutes alone.

In explaining their position, the prosecutors have pointed to what they describe as the superior authority of the Second Amendment. They argue that constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms outweigh the state’s new restrictions, and they cite that belief as a central reason for refusing to file or pursue prosecutions under the coming ban.

This emerging standoff sets up a significant conflict inside Virginia’s criminal-justice system, as enforcement of a statewide firearms policy may vary depending on local prosecutorial decisions. With the start date of July 1, 2026 approaching, the gap between state lawmakers’ intent and local prosecutors’ willingness to enforce the ban is becoming a major point of contention.
Virginia Prosecutors in Four Counties Say They Won’t Bring Charges Under New “Assault Weapons” Ban

My Right To Carry News Team

May 28, 2026

Several elected Commonwealth’s Attorneys in Virginia are publicly signaling they do not intend to pursue criminal cases under the state’s new “assault weapons” restrictions once the measures begin. Their announcements come ahead of the July 1, 2026 effective date for the legislation.

The prosecutors involved represent at least four counties: Spotsylvania, Powhatan, Pulaski, and Smyth. Each has stated that their offices will decline to prosecute alleged violations tied to the new ban, framing the decision as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a lack of awareness about what the new statutes will require.

The laws at the center of the dispute are SB 749 and HB 217. According to the prosecutors’ statements, they expect that when these laws take effect, charges submitted under those provisions will be rejected by their offices, meaning cases would not move forward in their jurisdictions based on those statutes alone.

In explaining their position, the prosecutors have pointed to what they describe as the superior authority of the Second Amendment. They argue that constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms outweigh the state’s new restrictions, and they cite that belief as a central reason for refusing to file or pursue prosecutions under the coming ban.

This emerging standoff sets up a significant conflict inside Virginia’s criminal-justice system, as enforcement of a statewide firearms policy may vary depending on local prosecutorial decisions. With the start date of July 1, 2026 approaching, the gap between state lawmakers’ intent and local prosecutors’ willingness to enforce the ban is becoming a major point of contention.
Tell President Trump to Pardon Tate Adamiak

My Right To Carry News Team

May 28, 2026

A new call-to-action is urging supporters of gun rights to contact President Donald Trump and ask him to grant a pardon to Tate Adamiak. The appeal is being circulated as a standalone message focused on one request: presidential clemency for Adamiak.

The campaign is framed as a direct outreach effort to the White House, encouraging people to make their views known to the president. Its central point is that a pardon would be an appropriate remedy in Adamiak’s case, and it asks readers to press that request with President Trump.

The message is being shared through Gun Owners of America’s public communications, including a post on the organization’s website. The headline and theme are centered on the same instruction—tell President Trump to pardon Tate Adamiak—highlighting the organization’s emphasis on immediate public engagement.

Gun Owners of America is distributing the alert through its online channels, including its RSS feed, as part of what appears to be a time-sensitive advocacy push. The item presents the pardon request as the main objective, without branching into unrelated policy debates.

Supporters who agree with the appeal are being asked to take action by communicating their support for a pardon directly to President Trump. The underlying approach is straightforward: mobilize grassroots pressure in favor of clemency for Tate Adamiak.
Gun Rights Groups Sue Maryland After SB 334 Targets Glock-Style Handguns

My Right To Carry News Team

May 27, 2026

National gun rights organizations moved quickly to court after Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 334, launching a federal civil rights lawsuit against state officials. The challenge was filed immediately following the bill’s enactment, signaling that opponents intend to fight the new restrictions well before they begin to be enforced.

At the center of the dispute is SB 334’s treatment of common semiautomatic pistols, particularly Glock handguns and similar striker-fired designs. The law uses a legal category described as “machine-gun-convertible pistols,” and, under that classification, it sweeps in nearly all Glock models along with comparable firearms.

The practical effect of the measure is a broad prohibition on key parts of the lawful market for these handguns in Maryland. As written, the statute blocks the sale, manufacture, and transfer of the covered pistols within the state, creating a statewide barrier affecting routine commerce and ownership changes that would otherwise occur legally.

Supporters of the lawsuit argue that the state is attempting to restrict widely owned firearms by redefining them under a label that implies automatic-fire capability. From a constitutional, limited-government perspective, the move is seen as a step toward banning commonly chosen self-defense tools rather than targeting criminal misuse.

Although the bill is already signed, its effective date is set for January 1, 2027. That timeline sets the stage for a prolonged court fight, with the plaintiffs seeking to stop the law before it takes effect and Maryland preparing to defend a statute that would reshape which handguns can be legally sold or transferred in the state.
Eighth Circuit Rejects Lawsuit Over Minnesota’s Gun Permit Reciprocity Limits

My Right To Carry News Team

May 27, 2026

A federal appeals court has declined to revive a legal challenge aimed at forcing Minnesota to honor more out-of-state handgun carry permits, leaving the state’s current reciprocity boundaries in place. The ruling means Minnesota can continue refusing to recognize certain permits issued elsewhere without being found in violation of the Second Amendment.

The decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which dismissed the case rather than sending it forward for further litigation. With that dismissal, Minnesota’s existing approach to recognizing permits from other states remains intact.

At the center of the dispute was Minnesota’s policy of accepting some outside carry permits while not recognizing others. The plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should prevent the state from denying validity to certain permits held by nonresidents or issued under other states’ standards.

The appellate court did not adopt that theory. By concluding the lawsuit could not proceed, the court effectively accepted that Minnesota’s continued refusal to honor particular carry permits is not, by itself, a constitutional violation under the Second Amendment.

For gun owners and advocates of nationwide carry recognition, the outcome underscores how much discretion states still have in setting reciprocity rules, even after major Second Amendment decisions in recent years. Unless a different court reaches a contrary conclusion or lawmakers change the rules, Minnesota’s selective recognition of out-of-state carry permits will continue.