concealed carry

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.
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.
Vermont Senate Moves S. 329 Forward to Ban Firearms in Bars and Alcohol-Serving Restaurants

My Right To Carry News Team

May 8, 2026

A proposal in Montpelier is gaining traction that would create a uniform statewide rule limiting where firearms may be carried. The Vermont Senate has advanced S. 329, a measure aimed at prohibiting firearms inside bars and in restaurants that serve alcohol.

Supporters of the bill argue that the state should set one consistent policy rather than leaving the issue to piecemeal local action. In practice, S. 329 is intended to replace a separate effort tied to Burlington—an attempted charter change that has remained stuck for an extended period—by establishing a single standard across Vermont.

The Senate’s initial approval came through a vote split along party lines. While the bill is moving ahead legislatively, it is already heading toward a major obstacle at the executive level.

Governor Phil Scott is widely expected to reject the measure if it reaches his desk. He has previously indicated doubts about whether such a prohibition can be effectively enforced, raising questions about how the policy would work in real-world settings.

For Vermonters who prioritize individual liberty and consistent statewide rules, the debate is likely to center on whether restricting lawful carry in specific public venues improves safety or mainly creates new compliance issues for responsible citizens. As S. 329 continues through the process, the prospects for enactment appear tied not only to legislative votes, but also to the likelihood of a gubernatorial veto.
ATF Rule Changes and the Practical Impact on Gun Owners and FFLs

My Right To Carry News Team

May 8, 2026

Federal firearms regulation is entering another adjustment period as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rolls out updated rules aimed at reshaping how oversight works for both Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and everyday gun owners. The stated purpose is to increase openness and strengthen accountability in how the agency regulates the firearms marketplace. For many Americans who value limited government, the bigger question is whether these changes will function as genuine reform or simply expand bureaucracy under a new label.

These rule updates focus heavily on the relationship between the ATF and license holders. FFLs sit at the center of lawful firearm commerce, and any regulatory shift tends to affect the entire system—from how transactions are handled to how compliance expectations are communicated and enforced. By presenting the changes as a move toward transparency, the agency signals that it intends to clarify standards and make oversight more consistent. Whether that clarity reduces uncertainty for businesses or creates additional administrative burdens will depend on how the rules are implemented in practice.

Gun owners are also affected because the rules that govern licensees can ripple outward into the purchasing process, transfers, and the broader availability of lawful services. When policy changes alter how dealers operate, customers often experience the results through new procedures, longer timelines, or shifts in what businesses are willing to do to avoid compliance risks. Supporters of individual liberty typically want a system that targets actual criminal behavior while keeping lawful ownership and commerce straightforward and predictable.

The reform framing suggests the ATF is attempting to address criticism about uneven enforcement and opaque decision-making. For conservatives and libertarians, accountability is not just a slogan—it should mean clear, stable rules that do not change depending on region, administration priorities, or internal interpretations that the public cannot easily evaluate. Transparency, in this sense, should include understandable guidance, consistent expectations, and a fair process that respects due process for licensees who are trying to comply in good faith.

As these new rules take hold, FFLs and gun owners alike will be watching for the real-world effects: whether compliance becomes more manageable and predictable, or whether the regulatory footprint grows in ways that discourage lawful commerce. The outcome matters not only to businesses and customers, but also to the broader principle that constitutional rights should not be constrained by shifting administrative policy. The practical test will be whether the ATF’s promised transparency and accountability translate into measurable restraint and clarity rather than expanded red tape.
New Hampshire Senate Faces Deadline on Campus Carry Vote

My Right To Carry News Team

May 6, 2026

New Hampshire gun-rights advocates are focusing their attention on the State Senate, urging senators to act immediately on campus carry. Supporters argue that lawmakers have reached a decisive moment and that the next scheduled action is an opportunity to follow through on prior commitments.

The measure at the center of the dispute involves whether lawful firearm carry should be allowed on college and university property. Backers frame the issue as one of equal rights and personal security, maintaining that adults who can legally carry elsewhere in the state should not lose that ability simply because they step onto a campus.

According to the call-to-action circulating from advocates, the Senate is expected to take up the campus carry question tomorrow. That timeline has sparked intensified outreach aimed at senators, with supporters pushing for a clear “yes” vote rather than delays, amendments that weaken the proposal, or procedural maneuvers that stall a final outcome.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the argument is fundamentally about limiting bureaucratic control and preserving individual liberty. Proponents contend that campus policies and administrative rules should not override statewide protections for lawful carry, and they emphasize that self-defense is a personal responsibility that does not stop at the edge of a school’s property line.

The coming Senate action is being treated as a test of whether elected officials will deliver on what advocates describe as a straightforward promise: protect the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry for self-defense, including on campus. With the vote expected tomorrow, supporters are pressing senators to align their decision with constitutional rights and consistent statewide standards.
New Hampshire Senate Faces Deadline on Campus Carry Vote

My Right To Carry News Team

May 6, 2026

New Hampshire gun-rights advocates are focusing their attention on the State Senate, urging senators to act immediately on campus carry. Supporters argue that lawmakers have reached a decisive moment and that the next scheduled action is an opportunity to follow through on prior commitments.

The measure at the center of the dispute involves whether lawful firearm carry should be allowed on college and university property. Backers frame the issue as one of equal rights and personal security, maintaining that adults who can legally carry elsewhere in the state should not lose that ability simply because they step onto a campus.

According to the call-to-action circulating from advocates, the Senate is expected to take up the campus carry question tomorrow. That timeline has sparked intensified outreach aimed at senators, with supporters pushing for a clear “yes” vote rather than delays, amendments that weaken the proposal, or procedural maneuvers that stall a final outcome.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the argument is fundamentally about limiting bureaucratic control and preserving individual liberty. Proponents contend that campus policies and administrative rules should not override statewide protections for lawful carry, and they emphasize that self-defense is a personal responsibility that does not stop at the edge of a school’s property line.

The coming Senate action is being treated as a test of whether elected officials will deliver on what advocates describe as a straightforward promise: protect the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry for self-defense, including on campus. With the vote expected tomorrow, supporters are pressing senators to align their decision with constitutional rights and consistent statewide standards.
Garland Dad Defends Family During Carjacking Attempt, Suspect Dies After Struggle

My Right To Carry News Team

May 5, 2026

Authorities in Garland, Texas, say a violent carjacking attempt ended with the suspect fatally shot after confronting a father who had multiple family members inside the vehicle. The incident happened on Sunday afternoon, May 3, 2026, and was captured on surveillance video reviewed by police.

According to Garland Police Department officials, the suspect tried to take the vehicle while a family of eight was still in it. The father was inside with five children, along with two female passengers, when the attempted theft unfolded.

Police describe the suspect as unarmed but aggressive, and they say the confrontation turned into an extended physical struggle. Investigators indicate the father fought back as the suspect attempted to gain control of the vehicle with the occupants still present.

During the confrontation, the father shot the suspect, who later died from his injuries. Officials emphasize that the video evidence supports the conclusion that the father’s actions were taken to defend himself and protect the children and other passengers.

Garland police have stated that no charges are expected against the father. From a libertarian perspective that recognizes the fundamental right of self-defense, the case underscores a basic reality: when government cannot be everywhere at once, responsible citizens sometimes must act immediately to protect their families from violent threats.
Harris County Content Creator Meetup Ends in Shooting After Alleged Robbery Attempt

My Right To Carry News Team

May 3, 2026

A late-morning meet-up between two social media content creators in northwest Harris County erupted into gunfire on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, according to investigators with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

Authorities said the two had arranged to meet to talk about filming content. During the discussion, the encounter allegedly shifted from a planned collaboration into a confrontation inside a Tesla.

Investigators reported that the passenger pulled out a firearm and attempted to rob the driver. The driver then shot the passenger in the chest, deputies said.

The shooting was described by investigators as occurring during the attempted robbery, with the driver responding after the passenger allegedly produced a gun. The incident unfolded in northwest Harris County, and it happened late Tuesday morning.

The case remains tied to an alleged armed robbery attempt during what began as an ordinary content-creation meeting, based on the sheriff’s office account. Deputies have described the sequence as the passenger initiating the threat and the driver firing a single shot that struck the passenger in the chest.
Lodestar LNK9 First Look: A 9mm “Smart Gun” That Keeps Traditional Reliability Front and Center

My Right To Carry News Team

April 29, 2026

The Lodestar LNK9 enters the “smart gun” category with an approach that aims to satisfy two camps that rarely agree: those who demand old-school mechanical dependability and those who want modern access-control features built into the firearm itself. The pistol is a 9mm platform designed by a veteran, and its core premise is that performance and reliability remain the priority even as optional electronic authorization is added.

Rather than centering the product around electronics, the LNK9 builds biometric and PIN-based access into the system as an added layer that can be used when desired. This provides a way for an owner to control who can activate the firearm without forcing a one-size-fits-all operating model on everyone. In a space where new technology can sometimes feel like a mandate, Lodestar’s emphasis on choice is a notable part of the concept.

Security and privacy are also positioned as key elements of the design. Lodestar uses a closed ecosystem described as data-secure, which is meant to limit exposure compared with designs that rely on broader connectivity. For many gun owners concerned about surveillance, unwanted data sharing, or remote interference, a contained system is an important distinction when evaluating any firearm that includes electronics.

At the same time, the company’s messaging leans heavily on the idea that the LNK9 is still a serious defensive handgun first, and a tech-enabled option second. The electronic safety and authorization components are presented as entirely optional, allowing users to keep the pistol aligned with more traditional expectations of how a defensive sidearm should function. That effort to avoid turning technology into a requirement is central to how the LNK9 is framed.

Overall, the LNK9 is presented as a step forward in the smart-gun market by attempting to blend modern authorization methods with a high-performance 9mm platform that puts mechanical reliability at the forefront. By combining optional biometric and PIN access with a closed, data-secure ecosystem, Lodestar is positioning the LNK9 as a flexible tool for self-defense—one that seeks to bridge established firearm standards with contemporary security features without forcing owners into a single preferred way of using it.
Chicago Armed Citizen Stops Gun-Wielding Robbery Attempt

My Right To Carry News Team

April 29, 2026

Chicago saw another reminder that criminals do not always get to choose the outcome of their own crimes. In an incident highlighted by Bearing Arms, an armed resident confronted an alleged robber who was reportedly armed, turning what could have been a one-sided threat into a situation where the intended victim had options.

According to the account, the suspect initiated an attempted robbery while armed. Instead of complying, the targeted individual was also armed and responded with defensive force, disrupting the robbery attempt and forcing the encounter in a different direction than the suspect likely expected.

The episode underscores a point often lost in political debates about public safety: ordinary people sometimes face immediate danger without the luxury of waiting for a police response. In those moments, the ability to defend oneself can be the difference between becoming a victim and stopping a violent crime in progress.

Supporters of the right to keep and bear arms argue that lawful carry is not about looking for conflict, but about being prepared for it when it arrives uninvited. Incidents like this are frequently cited as real-world examples that a would-be attacker cannot assume helplessness from the people they target.

While broader arguments about gun policy tend to revolve around hypotheticals, this Chicago case centers on a concrete event: an armed robbery attempt met by an armed citizen who refused to be victimized. For many advocates of individual liberty and self-defense, it is further evidence that responsible, law-abiding firearm ownership can play a direct role in deterring crime and limiting harm when danger strikes.