My Right To Carry

constitutional rights

Colorado Supreme Court: At-Will Workers Can’t Be Fired for Lawful Self-Defense on the Job

My Right To Carry News Team

June 17, 2026

Colorado’s highest court has ruled that a private company cannot dismiss an at-will employee simply for using lawful self-defense while working. The decision came from the Colorado Supreme Court on Monday, June 15, 2026, and it was decided by a 5-2 vote.

The case, Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., centered on whether an employer’s policies and liability concerns can override an individual’s right to protect themselves from immediate danger. The court’s ruling makes clear that when a worker responds lawfully to an imminent threat, that act cannot be treated as grounds for termination.

In its opinion, the court emphasized that self-defense is not a privilege that disappears when someone clocks in. The justices concluded that a person’s fundamental constitutional protections remain intact in the workplace, even in an at-will employment relationship.

The ruling also addressed the argument that corporate risk management and insurance-driven rules should control how workers respond during emergencies. The court rejected the idea that liability policies can be used to strip workers of basic rights, underscoring that private employers do not get to nullify constitutional protections through internal rules.

For employees across Colorado, the decision establishes a clearer boundary between workplace policies and individual rights. From a libertarian perspective, the outcome reinforces a core principle: individuals retain the right to defend their lives, and private corporate policies cannot lawfully punish people for exercising that right when facing imminent danger.
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.
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.
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.
Kentucky Voters: Cast Your Ballot for Thomas Massie Today

My Right To Carry News Team

May 20, 2026

Kentucky voters are being urged to head to the polls today and support Rep. Thomas Massie. The message is straightforward: today is the day to vote, and Massie is the candidate being highlighted for Kentucky ballots.

The call to action comes from Gun Owners of America, which is directing attention to Kentucky’s election activity and encouraging turnout. Their post emphasizes immediacy, pointing readers to take action now rather than later.

Massie, a sitting member of Congress, is the focus of the organization’s appeal to voters in the state. The communication frames the choice as an important one for Kentuckians who prioritize constitutional limits, individual liberty, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Alongside the endorsement-style message, the central instruction remains clear: participate in today’s election and make sure your vote is counted. The overall thrust is aimed at mobilizing like-minded voters who align with a pro-Second Amendment and small-government outlook.

The organization’s post is published online through its website and distributed via its RSS feed, reinforcing that the purpose is timely voter engagement. For Kentucky residents eligible to vote today, the takeaway is to show up and cast a ballot for Thomas Massie.
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.
New York AG Letitia James Argues Civilian Body Armor Is Not Protected by the Second Amendment

My Right To Carry News Team

May 4, 2026

New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking a court to throw out a lawsuit aimed at overturning the state’s prohibition on most civilian purchases of body armor. The request is part of an ongoing legal dispute over whether protective gear used for personal safety falls within constitutional protections connected to self-defense.

At the center of the case is a challenge brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, which is contesting New York’s restrictions and seeking to restore access for ordinary residents. The lawsuit directly targets the state’s ban on civilian body armor purchases and frames the issue as one that should be evaluated through the lens of modern self-defense needs.

In pressing for dismissal, James is taking the position that body armor is not covered by the Second Amendment. That argument draws a line between firearms-related rights and protective equipment, asserting that the constitutional guarantee does not extend to the purchase of armor by civilians.

Supporters of the challenge contend that the ability to defend oneself is not limited to offensive tools and that protecting one’s life is inseparable from the broader concept of self-defense. From a libertarian perspective, restricting peaceful citizens from acquiring defensive protection shifts power away from individuals and toward the state, even as everyday people remain responsible for their own safety in unpredictable situations.

The legal battle highlights a broader national debate about how constitutional rights apply to contemporary safety concerns. With New York fighting to keep its ban in place and the Firearms Policy Coalition pushing back in court, the outcome could shape how far governments can go in limiting access to commonly sought protective gear in the name of regulation.