My Right To Carry

constitutional law

Supreme Court Narrows Gun Ban for Drug Users, Raising Big Questions for Future Cases

My Right To Carry News Team

June 19, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a man who had been prosecuted for possessing firearms while using one of the most widely used recreational drugs in America. While the decision delivered a clear win for that defendant, the Court’s reasoning was limited in scope, leaving major practical questions for gun owners, prosecutors, and lower courts.

At the center of the dispute was how federal law treats firearm possession when a person is a user of that drug. The Court’s outcome signaled that the government’s theory in this case went too far, at least as applied to the specific circumstances before the justices. In doing so, the Court drew a line that protects individual rights in a narrow slice of situations, rather than issuing a broad ruling that would settle every variation of the issue.

That narrowness is where the real-world consequences begin. When the Supreme Court resolves a case without sweeping language, the result often shifts the main battles to trial courts and federal appellate courts. Defendants may now argue that similar prosecutions should fail, but the government can respond that the ruling is confined to a particular fact pattern. This sets up a period of uneven application across jurisdictions as judges interpret what, exactly, the decision does and does not cover.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the case underscores a recurring tension: expanding criminal prohibitions around firearm ownership can collide with constitutional protections, especially when the underlying conduct—drug use—has become common and is treated very differently depending on the state. A ruling that is technically narrow can still matter a great deal because it may deter some prosecutions, change plea negotiations, or influence how aggressively federal authorities pursue cases involving gun possession and personal drug use.

The decision also highlights the practical uncertainty that arises when major cultural shifts outpace federal statutes. Even without a sweeping declaration, the Court’s holding may reshape the strategy on both sides of the courtroom in future cases dealing with guns, controlled substances, and who counts as prohibited from exercising a fundamental right. For now, the ruling answers the question for one defendant, while leaving the broader landscape to be sorted out through further litigation.
Supreme Court Unanimously Overturns Federal Gun Ban for Habitual Marijuana Users

My Right To Carry News Team

June 18, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision on Thursday, June 18, 2026, invalidating a long-standing federal restriction that barred certain marijuana users from possessing firearms. In a 9–0 ruling, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment does not allow the federal government to impose a broad, automatic disarmament policy based on marijuana use alone.

The case, United States v. Ali Danial Hemani, centered on a decades-old federal law aimed at people described as regular or habitual users of marijuana. The Court’s decision rejects the idea that this category, by itself, is enough to strip citizens of their right to keep and bear arms.

A key part of the ruling is the Court’s insistence on individualized evidence rather than blanket assumptions. The decision states that the government cannot categorically disarm citizens solely due to casual drug use unless it can show, on an individual basis, that the person presents an active and documented danger to society.

From a libertarian and constitutionalist perspective, the decision reinforces a principle often ignored in federal policy debates: rights are not supposed to be revoked through sweeping classifications that treat large groups of people as presumptively unfit. The Court’s approach places the burden back on the government to justify restrictions with specific proof tied to a particular person, rather than relying on generalized labels.

The ruling is a major statement on how far federal power can go when regulating firearm possession in connection with marijuana use. By declaring the ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has made clear that casual use, without more, is not a sufficient basis for a categorical firearms prohibition.
Supreme Court Turns Away Two New York Second Amendment Petitions, Relists 25 Other Gun Case

My Right To Carry News Team

June 18, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to take up two separate Second Amendment disputes aimed at New York gun regulations. With those denials, the justices leave the challenged New York rules in place for now and decline to review the lower-court outcomes.

At the same time, the Court is still weighing a broader group of firearms-related petitions. Rather than issuing final decisions across the board, the justices continue to consider numerous Second Amendment cases that have been presented for review.

One clear sign of that continued consideration is the Court’s decision to relist another gun case for a future conference. In Supreme Court practice, a relist means the justices did not resolve the petition at their first opportunity and instead returned it to the agenda for additional internal review.

According to the report, the Court relisted 25 other gun case. That move indicates the Court has not finished evaluating whether it wants to step in on at least some of the ongoing disputes involving firearm laws and the scope of the Second Amendment.

From a constitutional and liberty-minded perspective, the mixed signals are notable: New York’s contested restrictions avoid immediate scrutiny from the nation’s highest court, while many other Second Amendment challenges remain in a holding pattern. For gun owners and civil-liberties advocates watching for clear guidance, the result is continued uncertainty as the Court decides which, if any, of these cases will ultimately be heard.
Do DUI Convictions Justify Losing Gun Rights? How Courts Are Weighing the Second Amendment

My Right To Carry News Team

June 14, 2026

A recurring question in Second Amendment debates is whether past misconduct that does not necessarily involve firearms can be used to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms. One of the most contested examples is driving under the influence, a crime tied to public safety risks but typically unrelated to gun ownership itself.

The issue has come into sharper focus as courts continue to interpret what the Constitution permits after the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment rulings. The central dispute is straightforward: does a person’s history of drunk driving show they are so dangerous that the government may permanently or broadly disarm them, even if their offenses happened on the road rather than with a weapon?

At least one state supreme court has indicated the answer can be yes. In that court’s view, a record of DUI offenses can be treated as a sufficient basis to overcome an individual’s claim to keep and bear arms, effectively allowing firearm rights to be denied or removed because of repeated alcohol-impaired driving.

From a libertarian and conservative perspective, that approach raises concerns about how far the “dangerousness” rationale can be stretched. If the government can point to a non-gun criminal history—like drunk driving—as grounds for disarmament, critics worry the category could expand over time, shifting the right from a protected constitutional guarantee to something contingent on broad judgments about a person’s past conduct.

Supporters of a narrower view argue that DUI laws already impose significant penalties tailored to the offense—license suspensions, fines, jail time, monitoring, and other restrictions—without rewriting the boundaries of a fundamental right. They contend that, absent a direct connection to firearms misuse or a clearly defined constitutional exception, courts should be cautious about using DUI histories as a stand-in for a blanket determination that someone is unfit to exercise Second Amendment rights.
Supreme Court Declines DOJ Request to Review Nonviolent Felon Gun Rights Case

My Right To Carry News Team

June 10, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to take up a Justice Department appeal involving gun ownership rights for people with nonviolent felony convictions. The decision leaves unresolved, for now, a major constitutional and policy question that has been developing in the lower courts.

At the center of the dispute is a federal statute that broadly prohibits felons from possessing firearms. In the case at issue, a lower court had ruled that the ban could not be applied in full in the circumstances before it, partially invalidating the restriction as it related to nonviolent felons. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to step in and review that outcome.

By turning down the appeal, the justices signaled they are not yet prepared to provide nationwide guidance on how the Second Amendment applies to individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies. The practical effect is that the lower court’s ruling remains in place, but only within the bounds of that case and the jurisdiction where it applies.

The refusal to hear the case also means the broader legal debate continues without a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. For gun-rights advocates, this ongoing uncertainty matters because it leaves constitutional questions to be decided circuit by circuit, with outcomes potentially varying across the country.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the court’s decision highlights the ongoing tension between one-size-fits-all federal prohibitions and the principle that rights should not be curtailed beyond what is necessary—especially when the underlying conviction did not involve violence. Until the Supreme Court addresses the issue directly, the contours of gun rights for nonviolent felons will remain largely shaped by lower-court litigation.
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.
Virginia Enacts “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Limits, Shifting the Fight to the Courts

My Right To Carry News Team

May 18, 2026

Virginia’s debate over restricting certain firearms and ammunition magazines has moved into a new phase. After a prolonged period of uncertainty, the proposals targeting so-called “assault weapons” and magazines are no longer merely pending ideas. They are now part of state law, closing out the immediate legislative contest.

With enactment complete, the next arena is the judiciary. The push to reverse these new limits is expected to take shape through lawsuits aimed at invalidating the bans. In other words, the political process has produced an outcome, and opponents are now preparing to challenge that outcome through legal claims.

From a conservative and libertarian standpoint, this transition matters because it changes what success looks like. Instead of persuading lawmakers or the governor, critics must now convince judges that the restrictions cannot stand under the relevant constitutional standards that govern firearms regulations.

The road ahead will likely be defined by procedural choices as much as headline issues: who brings the case, where it is filed, and what immediate relief is requested. The initial legal actions will shape the pace and direction of the broader effort to roll back the newly enacted hardware and magazine rules.

For supporters of robust Second Amendment protections, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: the policy fight has ended for now, but the contest over rights and limits is only beginning. The practical path forward runs through litigation intended to undo Virginia’s “assault weapon” and magazine bans now that they have become law.
NSSF Backs Lawsuit Challenging Virginia’s HB 217 and SB 749 Firearm Ban

My Right To Carry News Team

May 15, 2026

NSSF, the trade association representing the firearm industry, announced in Washington, D.C., that it is financing a newly filed lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The organization says the case challenges state actions it believes conflict with both the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution.

At the center of the dispute is Virginia’s recently enacted legislation identified as HB 217 and SB 749. According to NSSF, the law is sweeping in scope and imposes a prohibition involving certain firearms.

NSSF states the statute bars the sale and transfer of firearms that, in its view, are specifically protected for private ownership under constitutional guarantees. The lawsuit, NSSF says, is aimed at stopping what it characterizes as unconstitutional restrictions embedded in the new measure.

By choosing to fund the litigation, the organization is positioning the courts as the venue to resolve whether Virginia’s approach aligns with constitutional limits. The filing signals that the debate over how far state government can go in regulating commonly owned firearms is likely to continue in courtroom proceedings.

NSSF’s announcement frames the legal challenge as a direct response to the enactment of HB 217 and SB 749 and the restrictions the organization says those bills impose on lawful commerce and private transfers. The case now turns on judicial review of the law’s compatibility with the federal and state constitutions cited in the complaint.
DOJ’s Colorado Gun Lawsuits Face a Tight Political Timeline

My Right To Carry News Team

May 10, 2026

The Justice Department’s latest move in Colorado has energized gun-rights supporters who want courts to strike down bans on AR-15-style rifles and limits on magazine capacity across the country. From a libertarian and conservative perspective, the development is notable not only for what it signals about federal enforcement priorities, but also for how quickly the window for meaningful progress could close.

At the center of the moment is timing. The Trump Administration’s action is being read by advocates as a fresh tailwind for challenges to restrictions that have become common in blue states. Still, even a favorable legal posture can be undermined if key decisions don’t arrive soon enough to matter, especially when political control and administrative direction can shift on an election cycle.

Colorado is now a focal point because the federal government has chosen to press its position through lawsuits in that state. Supporters of the effort see this as a chance to bring added legal pressure against policies they view as unconstitutional burdens on lawful ownership and self-defense. But the pace of litigation is rarely predictable, and that reality creates risk for any strategy dependent on fast-moving court schedules.

The broader stakes reach beyond Colorado. If bans on AR-15s and magazine limits can be defeated in court, the outcomes could influence similar laws elsewhere by shaping precedent and offering a roadmap for future challenges. Gun-rights groups have long argued that commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines should not be treated as exceptional or prohibited items, and they’re watching closely for signals that courts may be willing to take that position.

Even so, the underlying question is whether the Justice Department’s effort can clear major procedural hurdles before the political calendar reshuffles the incentives and priorities in Washington. A change in administration can alter litigation strategy, settlement posture, and the intensity with which the federal government pursues a case. That uncertainty is why observers describe the situation as a race: the legal arguments may be strong, but the clock can be just as decisive.