My Right To Carry

Congress

Foushee Bill Would Create CDC-Run Gun “Prevention” Research Database With Federal Funding

My Right To Carry News Team

June 19, 2026

A new proposal in Congress would assign the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a major role in collecting and distributing academic work labeled as “gun violence prevention” research. Supporters describe the idea as a way to centralize information for the public, while critics argue it would use federal resources to elevate a policy agenda that typically aligns with gun-control activism.

The legislation was introduced by U.S. Rep. Valerie Foushee, a Democrat from North Carolina. Her bill is titled the Gun Violence Prevention and Public Safety Database Act of 2026, and it is filed as H.R. 9274. The measure would require the CDC to create and manage a federal database focused on “gun violence prevention” research.

Under the proposal, the database would be publicly accessible. In practice, that means the federal government would not only assemble the collection but also host it for broad public use. The bill directs the CDC to build and maintain this database as an ongoing federal project.

From a conservative and libertarian standpoint, the concern is less about whether research should exist and more about which institution is tasked with curating it, what standards are used to select material, and how that curation could influence public debate. Assigning the CDC—an agency with substantial national authority—to oversee a topic as politically contested as firearms policy raises questions about viewpoint balance and whether taxpayers would end up underwriting advocacy presented as neutral public health information.

Because H.R. 9274 centers specifically on “gun violence prevention” research, opponents worry the framing could predispose the database toward conclusions that favor restrictions rather than presenting a broad, even-handed range of findings. As debate over the bill develops, the key issues likely to draw attention will include how “gun violence prevention” is defined, what qualifies for inclusion, and how the CDC would ensure the database is not effectively a federally funded megaphone for one side of the gun policy argument.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman Revives HEAR Act to Prohibit Suppressors

My Right To Carry News Team

June 16, 2026

A new push in Congress is targeting firearm suppressors, reigniting a familiar dispute over what “common sense” should mean in federal gun policy. Critics of gun-control legislation argue that these efforts repeatedly focus more on regulating people than on addressing criminal misuse, and they say the latest proposal fits that pattern.

At the center of the renewed debate is U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Democrat from New Jersey. She has reintroduced federal legislation called the Help Empower Americans to Respond Act, commonly referred to as the HEAR Act. The proposal is framed by supporters as a public-safety measure, but opponents contend the bill’s branding is misleading and that its practical effect would be a broad ban on suppressors.

Suppressors are often a flashpoint because their name invites misconceptions. Those who favor fewer restrictions emphasize that suppressors are not “silencers” in the Hollywood sense and that their primary value is reducing noise exposure for shooters and people nearby. From a libertarian-leaning view, the underlying concern is that lawmakers are again placing new limits on a piece of safety-related equipment rather than focusing enforcement on those who commit crimes.

The reintroduction of the HEAR Act also highlights a recurring political strategy in Washington: reintroducing previously proposed gun-control measures and packaging them under appealing titles. Opponents argue that the “common sense” label is frequently used to sell policies that would criminalize ordinary ownership and lawful use, while doing little to deter individuals already willing to break existing laws.

As the legislation returns to the congressional agenda, gun-rights advocates are signaling firm resistance. They see the HEAR Act as another attempt to expand federal restrictions on lawful firearm accessories, and they argue that such proposals continue to shift decision-making away from individuals and toward centralized regulation.
NSSF Backs Cornyn’s SHOT Act to Reinforce PLCAA and Curb Public Nuisance Lawsuits

My Right To Carry News Team

June 14, 2026

NSSF, which represents the firearm industry as a trade association, voiced support for new federal legislation introduced in Washington, D.C., saying it would help stop a wave of public nuisance lawsuits aimed at lawful businesses in the gun sector.

The proposal is S. 4775, titled the Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts (SHOT) Act. NSSF says the bill is designed to reinforce the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law intended to limit improper litigation that tries to hold manufacturers and sellers responsible for criminal misuse of their products.

According to NSSF, the bill was introduced by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas. The organization argues that courts have allowed certain public nuisance claims to proceed in ways that invite costly and sprawling lawsuits, even when the businesses being sued have complied with existing laws and regulations.

From a limited-government perspective, NSSF frames these cases as an attempt to achieve policy outcomes through the courts rather than through elected legislatures. The association says the SHOT Act would close avenues for what it describes as meritless suits that can function as de facto regulation through litigation and impose major legal burdens regardless of the final outcome.

NSSF’s statement casts the measure as a straightforward effort to strengthen PLCAA’s protections so that lawful commerce in firearms is not targeted by litigation theories that treat legally made and legally sold products as a public nuisance. The organization is urging attention to the bill’s goal of preventing such lawsuits from moving forward.
GOA Backs Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Proposal to Repeal the Machine Gun Tax

My Right To Carry News Team

May 21, 2026

Gun Owners of America has announced its support for legislation introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert that would remove the federal tax applied to automatic weapons. The organization’s endorsement centers on eliminating the existing tax burden that applies to these firearms under current federal law.

Boebert’s measure targets the tax requirement tied to automatic weapons and would end that specific federal charge if enacted. The proposal has drawn attention within Second Amendment advocacy circles as a direct change to how the federal government treats these firearms.

In its statement backing the bill, Gun Owners of America framed the issue as one of protecting constitutional rights and reducing federal barriers. From a limited-government perspective, the group’s position reflects a broader argument that lawful gun ownership should not be conditioned on special federal taxation.

The endorsement also highlights how national gun-rights organizations are prioritizing legislative efforts that address not only bans and regulations, but also cost-based restrictions. Supporters typically view these taxes as a policy tool that can discourage ownership through financial pressure rather than through an outright prohibition.

For now, the development is the introduction of the bill and GOA’s public support for it, setting the stage for continued debate in Congress over whether the tax on automatic weapons should remain in place or be repealed.
Kentucky Voters: Back Thomas Massie in Tomorrow’s Election

My Right To Carry News Team

May 19, 2026

Kentucky voters head to the polls tomorrow with a clear choice about the direction of the state’s representation in Washington. For those who prioritize limited government and constitutional principles, the election is an opportunity to support a candidate aligned with those values.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie is on the ballot in Kentucky, and his supporters are urging voters to turn out and cast their vote for him. The message is straightforward: show up tomorrow and make your preference count.

The call to action is aimed squarely at Kentuckians who want an elected official known for resisting federal overreach and backing individual liberties. In that view, elections are one of the most direct ways for citizens to push back against policies that expand government power.

Because turnout can decide outcomes, supporters emphasize voting promptly and making sure friends and family participate as well. The focus is on practical civic engagement—getting to the polls and ensuring the result reflects the voters who care enough to act.

With the vote happening tomorrow in Kentucky, the immediate task for Massie’s backers is simple: participate in the election and support Thomas Massie at the ballot box.
Fix Our Forests Act Moves Forward in Congress to Tackle Wildfire Risk and Restore Habitat

My Right To Carry News Team

May 9, 2026

A major federal effort to address worsening conditions in America’s forests is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers advance bipartisan legislation aimed at improving forest health. Supporters say the problem has been building for years and has been repeatedly highlighted by people who live and work closest to the land, including hunters, conservation advocates, rural residents, and forest managers.

Earlier this session, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 471, known as the Fix Our Forests Act. The measure is a stated priority of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which has been urging action to confront what it describes as a forest health crisis affecting habitat and increasing wildfire danger.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Backers emphasize that Westerman’s role as committee chair places him at the center of congressional work on public lands and forest policy, and they argue that his leadership reflects an on-the-ground understanding of the challenges that have been accumulating across many forested regions.

Proponents frame the legislation as a practical response focused on restoring habitat while also lowering the likelihood and severity of catastrophic wildfires. The argument behind the push is that delaying action has real consequences for communities near forested areas and for those who rely on healthy habitat for wildlife and outdoor recreation.

From a limited-government perspective, supporters also point to the value of timely, targeted management decisions that reduce risks before disasters occur, rather than relying on costly emergency responses after fires break out. With House passage completed, advocates are pressing for continued progress as Congress considers next steps for the Fix Our Forests Act.
Concerns About Government Surveillance of Gun Owners

My Right To Carry News Team

April 23, 2026

Federal surveillance of Americans doesn’t always look like agents serving warrants or conducting raids. In practice, a large part of modern monitoring can happen quietly—by buying information that private companies already collected. That’s the concern driving a growing debate right now: whether federal agencies are using commercial data purchases, plus Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities, to map and categorize lawful gun owners without going to court.

Here’s what’s happening in the current landscape. Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies are purchasing access to enormous commercial datasets. These data troves can include location histories, web browsing activity, and inferred interests or hobbies—essentially whatever a data broker is willing to package and sell. The core issue isn’t that this information exists; it’s that government entities can obtain it with a credit card instead of a warrant.

Under today’s interpretation of privacy rules, agencies argue they don’t need a court order to acquire information that was already gathered by private companies. Critics respond that this creates an end-run around the Fourth Amendment: if the government can’t lawfully seize certain personal information without probable cause and judicial oversight, it shouldn’t be allowed to buy the same information and call it “legal.” In other words, the method changes, but the effect—warrantless access to sensitive personal data—remains.

For gun owners, the anxiety is amplified by how these datasets can be used. When location data, browsing behavior, and consumer profiles are combined, they can help build detailed dossiers on individuals and communities. And the targeting concern isn’t merely theoretical. The Biden administration formally classified gun owners as “Militia Violent Extremists,” which adds fuel to fears that lawful Second Amendment activity could be treated as a signal for heightened scrutiny.

Then there’s FISA Section 702. This authority was promoted to the public as a way to monitor foreign threats. But Section 702 also creates a pathway for Americans’ communications and data to be collected when they are in contact with a foreign surveillance target—without requiring a warrant for the American whose information is incidentally swept in. People worried about gun-owner profiling argue that when Section 702 collection is paired with commercially purchased data, it becomes far easier to identify, sort, and track Americans who haven’t been charged with any wrongdoing.

Technology is what makes all of this feel different—and more immediate—than older surveillance debates. AI-driven analysis can rapidly cross-reference millions of records, making it possible to assemble large-scale profiles in seconds. The fear expressed by critics is that this combination of mass data access and automated processing can function like an informal, AI-assisted gun registry—even if there’s no single database labeled that way and even if it doesn’t rely on individual firearm transaction records. The infrastructure is what matters: commercial data pipelines, analytics platforms, and government access mechanisms that can be repurposed by any future administration, including one hostile to gun rights.

That’s why the legislative fight is active right now. Two bills are central to the immediate policy push:
– Rep. Warren Davidson’s Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act, which is intended to shut down the loophole that allows government agencies to purchase sensitive personal data without meeting constitutional warrant standards.
– Sen. Mike Lee’s Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act, aimed at curbing abuses tied to surveillance authorities and reinforcing protections that require warrants.

Supporters of these measures argue the principle should be simple: if an agency would need a warrant to compel the data, it shouldn’t be able to bypass the courts by buying it. No warrant, no purchase, no special carve-outs.

For gun owners watching this unfold, the practical takeaway is that the question isn’t whether surveillance tools exist—they do, and they’re already widely deployed. The live question is whether Congress will change the rules now, while the systems are in place, to prevent warrantless profiling of law-abiding Americans who choose to exercise a constitutional right.