My Right To Carry

DOJ

Brady Sues DOJ and ATF to Revive Public “Name-and-Shame” Effort

My Right To Carry News Team

June 11, 2026

Brady: United Against Gun Violence has taken legal action aimed at pressuring the federal government to restart a public-facing “name-and-shame” approach that it says should be supported by official agencies. The group’s lawsuit targets the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, after the organization lost what it viewed as federal backing for the campaign.

At the center of the dispute is Brady’s effort to publicly spotlight certain federally licensed firearms businesses. According to the account of the case, Brady wants the DOJ and ATF to provide information in a way that would enable continued public call-outs of specific industry participants, even though the agencies are constrained by federal legal requirements governing what can and cannot be disclosed.

The legal complaint, as described, seeks to compel the agencies to act in ways critics argue would conflict with federal law. Those critics maintain that the requested disclosures are not simply a policy choice, but an attempt to force government offices into releasing material that statutes restrict, raising concerns about whether the suit is effectively asking the agencies to disregard existing rules.

Beyond the legal questions, opponents of the lawsuit argue that expanding disclosures could create practical risks for public safety. They contend that exposing certain law-enforcement-sensitive details or operationally relevant information could endanger officers and ongoing work, and that government should not be pushed into making releases that could be exploited or that could compromise safety.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the lawsuit is seen as an effort to use government power to amplify political pressure rather than to improve public safety through lawful, transparent processes. Critics argue that policy fights should not be waged by trying to force federal agencies into legally questionable actions, especially when those actions could create unintended consequences for law enforcement and the public.
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.
DOJ’s Missing Gun Rights Restoration Path Leaves Law-Abiding Americans in Limbo

My Right To Carry News Team

May 29, 2026

The Department of Justice has produced a new development tied to the restoration of gun rights, but it is not the outcome many Second Amendment advocates have been anticipating. For activists focused on a clear, workable way for people to regain firearm rights after losing them under federal law, the latest signal from DOJ does not appear to deliver that long-awaited plan.

At the center of the frustration is the question of when, or whether, DOJ will put forward a functional rights-restoration mechanism that people can actually use. Supporters of gun rights have been watching for a concrete policy or procedure that would allow qualified individuals to have their rights recognized again. Instead, the update that exists does not match the type of forward movement many expected to see.

The situation matters because, in practice, “rights restoration” is not an abstract talking point—it affects real people who believe they should have a defined process to regain constitutionally protected liberties once they have satisfied legal penalties or otherwise become eligible. From a libertarian and conservative perspective, a system that removes a fundamental right should not be allowed to operate indefinitely without an accessible, predictable route to restoration.

The new information indicates DOJ activity in the area, yet it still leaves unanswered the basic question raised by gun-rights proponents: where is the actual restoration plan? Without a clear program, timelines, or public-facing standards, the promise of restoring rights can feel more like a concept than a functioning part of the justice system.

For those following the issue, the takeaway is that DOJ’s recent movement does not appear to provide the specific relief many advocates have demanded. Until the department puts a usable, transparent framework in place, the debate is likely to continue—especially among Americans who see the Second Amendment as a core civil liberty that should not be treated as permanently forfeited without a fair path back.
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.
ATF Rulemaking and the Legal Gamble: Weighing Risk Against Reward

My Right To Carry News Team

May 2, 2026

A new set of regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has raised a central question for gun-rights advocates and legal observers alike: are these rules built to survive in court, or are they crafted to stretch statutory limits as far as possible?

That question was put directly to the Justice Department this week. On Wednesday, the Acting Attorney General was asked whether the latest ATF rule package was intended to test the outer edge of what the law allows or whether the priority was ensuring the regulations could withstand legal challenges.

The inquiry matters because federal firearm policy often doesn’t end when an agency publishes a rule. In practice, major ATF actions regularly turn into courtroom fights, with outcomes that can reshape enforcement nationwide and create uncertainty for lawful gun owners, dealers, and manufacturers during the litigation window.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the concern is less about bureaucratic ambition and more about constitutional and statutory guardrails. When executive-branch agencies attempt to make sweeping changes through rulemaking rather than through clear legislation, it can shift lawmaking power away from elected representatives and toward unelected administrators, leaving rights and compliance obligations dependent on shifting interpretations.

At the same time, agencies sometimes calculate that even rules with shaky legal footing can produce real-world effects—at least temporarily—through compliance pressure, enforcement uncertainty, and the costs of challenging the government. The risk-reward calculation, then, is not only about winning in court, but also about what can be achieved before a judge ever reaches the merits.

The exchange with the Acting Attorney General highlights the broader tension embedded in modern firearms regulation: whether the government is aiming for durable, legally stable policy, or betting that aggressive rulemaking can advance priorities even if courts later intervene. For readers tracking federal gun policy, that strategic choice can matter as much as the text of the rules themselves.
Trump Administration Reschedules Marijuana, Says It Won’t Affect Supreme Court Gun and Cannabis Case

My Right To Carry News Team

April 25, 2026

The Justice Department is taking a meaningful step toward easing federal marijuana controls, but it’s also making clear that the change does not automatically translate into near-term relief for marijuana users who possess firearms—especially in the Supreme Court fight now pending in US v. Hemani.

On Thursday, DOJ issued a final order that moves marijuana to a less restrictive status under the federal scheduling system and expands the set of circumstances in which marijuana-related products can be used lawfully. At the same time, Solicitor General John Sauer notified the Supreme Court that, in the administration’s view, the new scheduling decision should not alter how the justices resolve Hemani’s challenge to the federal ban on gun possession by certain drug users.

Sauer’s message to the Court is straightforward: the government does not believe the rescheduling order changes the legal questions in Hemani in a way that requires a different outcome. The case involves a man charged after agents recovered a firearm from his home and he acknowledged using marijuana multiple times per week. DOJ is continuing to defend its ability to enforce the gun prohibition in at least some marijuana-related scenarios.

What the new DOJ order does—and what it does not do—matters for anyone trying to understand how enforcement may look in the months ahead.

The order relaxes restrictions, but it does not create blanket federal legalization. Instead, DOJ describes the change as applying broadly to marijuana and marijuana derivatives regulated under the Controlled Substances Act, including marijuana extracts and delta‑9‑tetrahydrocannabinol, as well as other marijuana-plant-derived compounds (excluding mature stalks and seeds) that are not considered hemp. Critically, DOJ ties the practical scope of the order to specific channels: the marijuana-related substances must be part of an FDA-approved drug product or must fall under a state-issued license that authorizes manufacturing, distribution, or dispensing for medical purposes (a “state medical marijuana license”). The order also places those drugs onto the list of substances that can be imported or exported only with a permit.

From an enforcement perspective, this structure suggests a potential narrowing of the highest-risk category of federal scrutiny for certain medical use pathways. It also hints at how the administration may want to draw lines between medical and recreational use when deciding where to direct resources. But the rescheduling action still leaves major constraints in place for gun owners.

The main reason is that the federal firearms prohibition at issue—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—does not hinge on whether marijuana is placed in Schedule I or Schedule III. The statute bars gun and ammunition possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” It does not distinguish between drugs across schedules, and it does not include an exception simply because a state has legalized marijuana. The relevant federal question is whether the substance remains federally controlled and whether the individual’s use is unlawful under federal law.

That’s why the administration can simultaneously ease certain federal marijuana rules and still argue that § 922(g)(3) remains enforceable against some marijuana users who have firearms.

The reaction from gun-rights advocates has been optimistic. Some activists are treating the scheduling move as a practical shield for gun owners who use medical marijuana consistent with state law, predicting fewer prosecutions and less fear of being categorized as a prohibited person.

The firearm industry, however, is signaling caution. When President Donald Trump floated the rescheduling plan late last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation advised members not to change how they handle firearm sales based on the proposal—at least not until the legal and regulatory picture became clearer. The group’s compliance messaging stressed that marijuana users can still be treated as prohibited persons under § 922(g)(3), that state legalization does not change the federal analysis, and that possession of a state medical marijuana card should be viewed as evidence of unlawful use for purposes of the gun-ban statute.

DOJ’s Supreme Court filing in Hemani reinforces that the government is not backing away from the prosecution posture in that case. Sauer’s letter emphasizes two reasons the final order should not disrupt Hemani.

First, the government points to timing: in its view, Hemani’s criminal exposure depends on the law in effect when the alleged offense occurred, not on later regulatory changes. At the time of the charged conduct, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance.

Second, Sauer argues that even under the new final order, Hemani’s marijuana use would not be covered by the rescheduling’s practical carve-outs because the marijuana involved was not part of an FDA-approved product and was not within a state medical marijuana licensing framework. Under that understanding, the government maintains that Hemani’s conduct would still fall on the Schedule I side of the line anyway.

The Supreme Court’s questioning at oral argument last month suggests that several justices are not entirely comfortable with the government’s theory—particularly the suggestion that ordinary marijuana use reliably maps onto dangerousness in a way that justifies disarmament. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s questioning captured the issue directly by pressing for evidence that using marijuana a couple of times per week makes someone dangerous, and by probing whether the government’s logic would extend to unlawful use of other prescription drugs such as Ambien or Xanax.

In his follow-up to the Court, Sauer also floated a potential off-ramp for the justices: if they want to avoid addressing how § 922(g)(3) applies to medical marijuana in a post-rescheduling world, they could craft a narrower decision focused only on Schedule I marijuana and leave the constitutionality of the statute as applied to Schedule III marijuana for another case.

For now, the operational takeaway is that DOJ’s rescheduling order may open additional lawful avenues for marijuana-related products in specific regulated settings, and it may change the political and practical context for some future enforcement decisions. But it does not, by itself, rewrite § 922(g)(3), nor does it persuade the administration to abandon its defense of that statute in US v. Hemani. Gun owners who use marijuana—especially outside FDA-approved channels or state medical licensing—should assume federal risk remains until courts or Congress change the underlying firearms law.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its Hemani decision by the end of June.