My Right To Carry

firearms policy

NSSF Applauds Senate Introduction of the FFL Protection Act (S. 4671)

My Right To Carry News Team

June 7, 2026

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) welcomed the introduction of new legislation in the U.S. Senate aimed at protecting federally licensed firearms dealers. The organization said the proposal reflects a bipartisan effort and highlighted what it views as an important step for lawful commerce in the firearms industry.

The bill is titled the FFL Protection Act and carries the designation S. 4671. According to NSSF, the measure was introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and it has bipartisan backing.

NSSF framed its support around the role that Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) play in the legal sale and transfer of firearms. From the organization’s perspective, clear and consistent rules are essential so that licensees who follow the law are not put at risk by shifting enforcement approaches.

The announcement emphasized that the legislation is now before the Senate as S. 4671. NSSF’s response focused on the act’s intended effect of safeguarding FFLs, which it described as a central part of maintaining a lawful and orderly marketplace.

By praising the bill’s introduction, NSSF underscored its interest in seeing Congress address concerns tied to the federal licensing system. The group’s statement positioned the measure as a policy development it believes would support compliant firearms retailers and the broader legal framework they operate within.
Colorado Issues First Guidance on Its New Semi-Auto Firearm Restriction Framework

My Right To Carry News Team

May 24, 2026

Colorado lawmakers moved away from the familiar “assault weapon” ban model and adopted a different method for regulating AR-15-style rifles and other semi-automatic firearms. That shift has left gun owners, dealers, and policymakers trying to determine how broad the new system will be once it is fully in effect.

A central uncertainty has been scope: which firearms will be captured by the new restrictions, and how many commonly owned models could end up covered. With the effective date approaching, the practical question has become less about labels and more about how the state intends to apply the rules in real-world transactions.

The state has now provided an initial signal of how it interprets its own framework. While early in implementation, this first public answer is significant because it begins to define the boundaries of a regulatory approach that is designed to reach beyond the usual statutory wording used in past “assault weapon” debates.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, that kind of open-ended uncertainty is itself a policy problem. When rules are not clearly defined from the start, ordinary people are left guessing about compliance, and lawful commerce can be chilled even before enforcement begins. For gun owners and small businesses, clarity is not a luxury; it is the baseline for due process and predictable treatment under the law.

As Colorado’s semi-auto restriction regime moves closer to its start date, the state’s first guidance will likely shape how residents evaluate what they can buy, keep, or transfer under the new system. The next phases will determine whether this “novel approach” ends up functioning as a narrowly tailored policy or a wide-reaching net that affects far more firearms than many expect.
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.
Florida AG Sues Jacksonville, Seeks $5 Million Over Alleged Firearm Check-In Records

My Right To Carry News Team

May 14, 2026

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has taken legal action against the city of Jacksonville, accusing city officials of keeping records that functioned as an unlawful gun registry. The lawsuit asks for a $5 million penalty and centers on how firearms were reportedly documented when brought into municipal buildings.

According to the complaint, Jacksonville maintained logs tracking guns checked in at city facilities from July 2023 through early 2025. The state contends those records crossed a legal line by creating a list of firearms tied to people entering government property, something Florida law prohibits.

The case also revisits a prior enforcement decision. While an investigation by the State Attorney’s Office found the registry-style logging violated state law, the city previously avoided criminal consequences despite that finding.

Uthmeier’s filing escalates the dispute from investigation and internal review into a direct court fight between the state and one of Florida’s largest cities. From a limited-government perspective, the lawsuit reflects a broader concern that local agencies can quietly expand surveillance-like recordkeeping beyond what voters and state law allow.

The legal challenge now puts Jacksonville’s practices during the July 2023 to early 2025 period under formal scrutiny, with the state seeking financial penalties and a court ruling on the city’s compliance. The outcome could influence how other Florida municipalities handle firearm check-in procedures at public buildings without creating prohibited registries.
Pennsylvania Senate Moves Constitutional Carry Bill Forward, Passes Measure to Enforce State Preemption

My Right To Carry News Team

May 13, 2026

Pennsylvania lawmakers took two notable steps on firearm policy in Harrisburg on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, advancing separate proposals that supporters say reinforce statewide protections for the right to keep and bear arms and curb local overreach.

One action centered on Senate Bill 357, commonly described as “constitutional carry.” The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send SB 357 onward, moving it out of committee and positioning it for consideration by the full Senate.

If enacted, constitutional carry legislation is generally aimed at allowing eligible, law-abiding adults to carry a firearm without first obtaining a permit, reflecting the view that the right to self-defense should not hinge on navigating government licensing systems. The committee vote means the measure cleared a key procedural hurdle, but it still must be taken up by the Senate as a whole.

The second development occurred on the Senate floor, where the full chamber approved Senate Bill 822. That bill is designed to strengthen enforcement of Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption framework, which is intended to keep gun laws uniform statewide rather than varying from one municipality to the next.

SB 822 focuses on consequences for local governments that act contrary to state preemption rules. Supporters argue that when cities or counties attempt to set their own firearms regulations, it creates a confusing patchwork that undermines legal clarity for ordinary residents and invites selective enforcement. The Senate’s approval of SB 822 signals a commitment to ensuring local officials face penalties when they disregard state law.

Taken together, the movement of SB 357 out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate’s passage of SB 822 marked a significant day for Second Amendment policy in Pennsylvania, with one bill advancing toward a full Senate debate and the other clearing the chamber as a preemption-enforcement measure.
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.
Pennsylvania SB 822 Advances, Moving a Stronger Firearm Preemption Bill to the Senate Floor

My Right To Carry News Team

May 5, 2026

Pennsylvania lawmakers are moving SB 822 forward, setting the stage for a full vote on the Senate floor. The measure focuses on reinforcing the state’s firearm preemption framework, a policy area that determines whether local governments can create their own gun regulations apart from statewide law.

The bill’s advancement signals that supporters believe it has reached a point where the entire Senate should weigh in. Rather than remaining in a preliminary stage, SB 822 has cleared the step needed to be formally considered by the full chamber, where senators can debate its provisions and decide whether it should pass.

At the heart of SB 822 is the concept of preemption—keeping rules consistent across Pennsylvania instead of allowing a patchwork of local ordinances that can vary from one municipality to the next. From a limited-government perspective, supporters argue that uniform statewide standards reduce confusion for lawful residents and help prevent local officials from imposing restrictions that go beyond what state law allows.

The legislation is being tracked closely by gun-rights advocates who view it as a direct response to local efforts to regulate firearms independently. In their view, stronger preemption is a way to ensure that elected officials at the local level cannot create penalties and compliance burdens that affect ordinary citizens differently depending on where they live or travel within the Commonwealth.

With SB 822 now headed to the Senate floor, attention shifts to the coming floor debate and vote. The next steps will depend on the Senate’s decision on final passage, determining whether the proposal continues through the legislative process or stalls at this stage.
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.