My Right To Carry

firearms law

  • Supreme Court Unanimously Overturns Federal Gun Ban for Habitual Marijuana Users

    Supreme Court Unanimously Overturns Federal Gun Ban for Habitual Marijuana Users

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    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 Declines DOJ Request to Review Nonviolent Felon Gun Rights Case

    Supreme Court Declines DOJ Request to Review Nonviolent Felon Gun Rights Case

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    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.

  • Second Circuit Rejects New York’s “Vampire Rule,” Restoring Default Carry on Private Property

    Second Circuit Rejects New York’s “Vampire Rule,” Restoring Default Carry on Private Property

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    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.