Current News

Best Beginner Concealed Carry Handgun: How to Choose a Safe, Reliable First Pistol

My Right To Carry News Team

May 27, 2026

Choosing a first concealed-carry handgun is less about chasing a trend and more about picking a tool you can operate confidently, carry responsibly, and practice with regularly. For new gun owners, the goal is straightforward: find a pistol that works every time, is comfortable enough to keep on you, and is manageable to shoot so training doesn’t become a frustrating chore.

Reliability should sit at the top of the list. A carry gun is meant to function when you need it, and beginners are best served by a dependable pistol that runs consistently with quality ammunition and basic maintenance. Alongside that, a beginner-friendly option is one that you can handle well at the range—something controllable in recoil and easy to manipulate—because consistent practice is what builds safe habits and competent marksmanship.

Safety and day-to-day carry considerations matter just as much as how the gun performs on the firing line. A pistol that is simple to carry securely and safely will be easier to integrate into your routine, which is the entire point of concealed carry. The best option for a new carrier is one that supports careful handling, encourages ongoing training, and fits a responsible approach to personal defense and self-reliance.

Rather than treating “best” as a single model, the practical approach is to focus on what makes a handgun appropriate for a beginner: a proven track record, shootability that supports learning, and a design you can carry with confidence. If the gun is uncomfortable, difficult to control, or intimidating to operate, many people will avoid practice or stop carrying altogether—both outcomes undermine the purpose of owning it.

Ultimately, the right concealed-carry handgun for a beginner is the one you can safely manage, comfortably conceal, and commit to training with over time. A clear-eyed selection process—prioritizing reliability, ease of shooting, and safe carry—helps new gun owners make a responsible choice while reinforcing the principle that personal protection is an individual right best exercised with competence and discipline.
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Pressed to Advance Constitutional Carry and Reinforce Statewide Firearms Preemption

My Right To Carry News Team

May 25, 2026

Gun-rights advocates in Pennsylvania are urging state lawmakers to move quickly on a package of priorities they say would protect lawful gun owners from shifting local rules and political backlash. The focus is on advancing “constitutional carry,” tightening statewide preemption of local gun regulations, and blocking what supporters describe as retaliatory restrictions aimed at discouraging firearms ownership and carry.

Supporters of constitutional carry argue that peaceable adults should not be required to obtain a government-issued permit to carry a firearm for self-defense. They contend that permitting systems can create unnecessary delays and costs for people who have done nothing wrong, while doing little to deter criminals who ignore the law. From this perspective, the aim is to treat the right to carry as a fundamental liberty rather than a privilege dependent on administrative approval.

At the same time, advocates are calling for stronger enforcement of Pennsylvania’s preemption framework, which is intended to keep firearm rules consistent statewide rather than allowing a patchwork of local ordinances. They warn that when cities or municipalities attempt to set their own gun rules, lawful residents can be put at risk of inadvertently violating unfamiliar regulations while traveling, working, or visiting family across county and city lines. In their view, uniform statewide standards are essential to protect due process and prevent selective enforcement.

The campaign also highlights opposition to what it characterizes as retaliatory gun control—new restrictions introduced in response to political pressure or as a punishment for pro-Second Amendment legislative efforts. Gun-rights supporters argue that such measures are often framed as public-safety initiatives but function in practice to burden compliant citizens, not violent offenders. They are asking legislators to stop any proposals they believe are designed to chill lawful ownership, purchase, or carry rather than target criminal misuse.

Advocates are directing their attention to the General Assembly and pressing elected officials to prioritize these issues in upcoming legislative action. They emphasize the importance of moving bills forward, strengthening preemption protections, and ensuring that local governments cannot impose rules that conflict with state law. For supporters, the broader goal is to secure robust protections for the right to keep and bear arms throughout Pennsylvania and prevent local or political maneuvers from narrowing that right.
Colorado Issues First Guidance on Its New Semi-Auto Firearm Restriction Framework

My Right To Carry News Team

May 24, 2026

Colorado lawmakers moved away from the familiar “assault weapon” ban model and adopted a different method for regulating AR-15-style rifles and other semi-automatic firearms. That shift has left gun owners, dealers, and policymakers trying to determine how broad the new system will be once it is fully in effect.

A central uncertainty has been scope: which firearms will be captured by the new restrictions, and how many commonly owned models could end up covered. With the effective date approaching, the practical question has become less about labels and more about how the state intends to apply the rules in real-world transactions.

The state has now provided an initial signal of how it interprets its own framework. While early in implementation, this first public answer is significant because it begins to define the boundaries of a regulatory approach that is designed to reach beyond the usual statutory wording used in past “assault weapon” debates.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, that kind of open-ended uncertainty is itself a policy problem. When rules are not clearly defined from the start, ordinary people are left guessing about compliance, and lawful commerce can be chilled even before enforcement begins. For gun owners and small businesses, clarity is not a luxury; it is the baseline for due process and predictable treatment under the law.

As Colorado’s semi-auto restriction regime moves closer to its start date, the state’s first guidance will likely shape how residents evaluate what they can buy, keep, or transfer under the new system. The next phases will determine whether this “novel approach” ends up functioning as a narrowly tailored policy or a wide-reaching net that affects far more firearms than many expect.
New Caney Shooting on Nottingham Road Ends With Suspect in Custody, Sheriff Says

My Right To Carry News Team

May 24, 2026

Authorities in Montgomery County say a shooting incident in New Caney, Texas, that injured multiple people has been brought to an end, with the suspected shooter now in custody. Officials stated the danger to the public has been eliminated.

The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office reported that the episode unfolded on Saturday evening, May 23, 2026, along Nottingham Road. Law enforcement responded to what was described as an active shooter situation.

After arriving in the area, deputies and other responding officers worked to stop the threat. The sheriff’s office said the suspect was “neutralized” and captured, indicating the individual was taken into custody and no longer posed an active danger.

Investigators also confirmed that Nottingham Road was treated as a crime scene during the response and that it has since been fully secured. Officials said the situation is no longer ongoing.

Multiple people were reported wounded in the incident. As the case moves forward, many residents will be watching for additional verified details from law enforcement, while also emphasizing the importance of swift emergency response and the right of ordinary people to protect themselves when violence breaks out.
Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Gary’s Bid to Revive 26-Year Lawsuit Against Gun Makers, NSSF Says

My Right To Carry News Team

May 23, 2026

The Indiana Supreme Court has declined to take up a request from the City of Gary that would have shifted jurisdiction and prolonged a lawsuit the city has pursued for more than two decades. The action effectively blocks an attempt to keep a 26-year-old case moving forward against firearm manufacturers.

NSSF, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, responded from Washington, D.C., praising the court’s decision. The trade association said the ruling reflects adherence to the rule of law and prevents continued litigation aimed at expanding liability beyond those who commit crimes.

At the center of the dispute is Gary’s long-running effort to hold gun manufacturers responsible for criminal misuse of firearms by third parties. The case sought to place legal blame on companies for acts carried out by individuals, rather than on the perpetrators themselves.

According to NSSF, Gary filed a petition to transfer jurisdiction in an effort to extend the litigation. The Indiana Supreme Court denied that petition, cutting off a pathway the city was using to keep the lawsuit alive.

NSSF characterized the suit as frivolous and argued that allowing it to continue would encourage politically driven litigation designed to punish lawful commerce through the courts. The group framed the court’s decision as an important check on “lawfare” tactics that, in its view, attempt to achieve policy outcomes by targeting manufacturers instead of addressing criminal behavior directly.
Support Efforts to Repeal the Hughes Amendment and Restore Rights for Law-Abiding Americans

My Right To Carry News Team

May 23, 2026

A long-standing federal restriction continues to shape what law-abiding Americans can legally own, even when they fully comply with background checks and other requirements. Supporters of the Second Amendment point to the Hughes Amendment as a central reason the supply of transferable, lawfully owned machine guns has been frozen for decades, driving scarcity and cost while doing little to address criminal misuse. The focus of current activism is straightforward: remove the federal prohibition created by that amendment.

The Hughes Amendment is commonly discussed as the 1986 change that barred civilians from acquiring newly manufactured machine guns for civilian possession, leaving only previously registered firearms eligible for transfer under the existing National Firearms Act system. That framework did not eliminate regulation; it limited what could be added to the legal registry going forward. As a result, only machine guns already in the registry before the cutoff can be transferred to qualified buyers, and that fixed pool has shaped the market ever since.

Second Amendment advocates argue that the restriction punishes compliance rather than crime. They contend that Americans who can pass the required federal background check, submit fingerprints and photographs when required, pay the applicable tax, and wait through the approval process should not face a categorical ban on newly manufactured transferable firearms. From a liberty-oriented perspective, the issue is less about expanding government processes and more about removing a blanket prohibition that applies to people who are already choosing the legal route.

The latest calls to action emphasize public involvement. Gun-rights supporters are encouraging readers and members to engage elected officials, keep informed on federal legislation, and back organizations that are working to overturn the Hughes Amendment. In this view, political pressure matters because Congress created the prohibition and Congress can undo it, but lawmakers typically move only when constituents make the issue unavoidable.

Advocates also stress that repealing the Hughes Amendment would not erase the existing regulatory structure for NFA items; it would change what can be registered and transferred in the future. They present the effort as a step toward aligning federal law with constitutional protections while treating responsible citizens as citizens, not suspects. For supporters, the goal is to restore the ability of qualified Americans to purchase newly made, legally registered machine guns under the same regulated process that already governs NFA transfers.
Second Circuit Rejects New York’s “Vampire Rule,” Restoring Default Carry on Private Property

My Right To Carry News Team

May 22, 2026

A federal appeals court has ruled against a New York policy that treated most private property as off-limits to lawful firearm carry unless the owner gave specific, affirmative permission. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down the provision often referred to as the state’s “Vampire Rule,” a nickname tied to how the law required property owners to “invite” carry rather than allowing it by default.

Under the invalidated rule, a person could not carry a firearm onto private property unless the owner had expressly allowed it. In practical terms, that approach flipped the normal presumption on its head and forced businesses and property owners to proactively opt in, instead of letting them set restrictions only when they chose to do so.

With the Second Circuit’s decision, the default framework returns to one that is more familiar in many states: lawful carry in businesses is permitted unless the property owner posts signage or otherwise communicates a prohibition. Property rights remain central under this approach—owners can still exclude firearms—but the burden is no longer on every owner to grant explicit permission before lawful carry is allowed.

The ruling is being viewed as a significant win for gun-rights advocates because it blocks a broad, statewide ban that effectively covered large swaths of ordinary, everyday locations. At the same time, the court did not wipe away all location-based limits and left intact certain restrictions in places deemed “sensitive.”

Among the limits the court kept in place are restrictions in public parks. As a result, while the decision narrows New York’s ability to impose a sweeping default ban on private property, it also confirms that the state can still enforce some carry prohibitions in specific categories of public locations.
Midterms Near, Polls Suggest Gun Policy Isn’t Driving Most Voters

My Right To Carry News Team

May 22, 2026

With the midterm elections drawing closer, the political conversation is intensifying across the country. Yet available indicators suggest that debates over firearms are not near the top of what most voters say is guiding their choices as Election Day approaches.

The latest discussion around voter priorities points to a familiar pattern in national politics: many people focus first on issues they feel most directly in their daily lives, while niche or lower-salience topics receive less attention. In that context, gun policy appears to be registering as a secondary concern for a broad share of the electorate, even as advocacy groups and political professionals continue to treat it as a perennial flashpoint.

That doesn’t mean firearm legislation has disappeared from public life. Rather, the current environment suggests that, for many voters, it is not the decisive factor shaping midterm preferences. Candidates may still stake out clear positions, and interest groups will still press them, but the issue is not showing the same broad voter urgency that drives top-tier campaign messaging.

For readers coming from a conservative or libertarian perspective, this lower level of public emphasis can be interpreted in a practical way. When voters are not prioritizing gun politics, it often creates more room to argue for core civil-liberties principles—such as individual rights and limited government—without campaigns being dominated by emotionally charged, reactive debates that tend to produce sweeping policy proposals.

As the midterms get closer, the overall takeaway is straightforward: while gun politics remain a constant part of America’s policy landscape, current signals indicate they are not commanding widespread voter attention in the same way as other concerns. The coming months will show whether that changes, but for now, firearms policy appears to sit well below the most motivating issues for many voters heading into the election.
Idaho Hunter Defends His Son, Kills Charging Grizzly at Close Range Near Ashton

My Right To Carry News Team

May 21, 2026

An Idaho man out hunting black bears with his young son in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest ended up in a sudden life-or-death encounter with a grizzly bear. The incident happened on Saturday evening, May 16, 2026, in the area outside Ashton.

According to authorities, the grizzly was a male and came in fast, closing the gap to extremely close range. The bear reached within about five yards of where the father and child were positioned, leaving almost no time or space to retreat.

The father fired, fatally shooting the grizzly during the charge. The shooting occurred during what investigators described as a close-range ambush, with the danger unfolding quickly and at point-blank distance.

After the bear was killed, the incident was promptly reported to the Fremont County Sheriff’s Office. That call set in motion the official response and review of what had occurred in the forest.

Idaho Fish and Game conducted a joint investigation into the shooting. Following that review, officials concluded the man’s actions were fully justified as a defense of life, reflecting the basic principle that people have a right to protect themselves and their families when an immediate threat leaves no reasonable alternative.
Second Circuit Blocks New York’s Presumed Ban on Carrying Firearms on Private Property Open to the Public

My Right To Carry News Team

May 21, 2026

A federal appeals court has rejected a key part of New York’s approach to restricting where licensed citizens may carry firearms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded the state cannot treat privately owned property that is open to the public as automatically off-limits to permit holders.

At the center of the dispute was a New York rule critics dubbed the “vampire rule,” a reference to the idea that lawful carry rights effectively disappear unless a property owner gives explicit permission. Under that framework, a person with a valid carry license could be presumed barred from bringing a firearm onto any private property that is publicly accessible unless the owner affirmatively allowed it.

The Second Circuit’s decision means New York may not impose a blanket presumption that licensed carry is forbidden across all such locations. Instead, the ruling recognizes that property owners remain free to set their own policies, but the state cannot preemptively convert every publicly accessible private space into a default prohibited zone for law-abiding licensees.

The case highlights an ongoing tension between broad state-level restrictions and the day-to-day reality of ordinary places people pass through—shops, businesses, and other privately owned locations that invite the public in. From a liberty-minded perspective, the decision reinforces the principle that constitutional rights should not be treated as privileges that vanish in most real-world settings by default.

While the ruling narrows New York’s ability to presume a ban, it does not remove a property owner’s authority to decide what is allowed on their premises. The key change is who makes the choice: the court’s decision prevents the state from making the default decision for every owner and every publicly accessible private property as a matter of law.