My Right To Carry

gun control

Texas Democrat James Talarico’s Senate Run Collides With Second Amendment Reality

My Right To Carry News Team

June 17, 2026

Texas politics has long been shaped by a strong culture of lawful gun ownership, and candidates who seek statewide office often have to decide whether they will respect that tradition or try to change it. Into that landscape steps Texas State Representative James Talarico, now the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, who is attempting to build statewide support while holding positions that favor additional gun control.

That approach presents a basic political problem in a state where many voters view the Second Amendment as a core liberty and a practical safeguard, not a negotiable policy preference. When a candidate signals support for restrictions that gun owners interpret as limits on lawful self-defense, hunting, and sporting use, skepticism tends to come quickly and remain hard to dislodge.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the disconnect is straightforward: campaigns can be packaged in appealing language, but proposals that expand federal or state power over constitutionally protected rights usually meet resistance. For Texans who prioritize individual responsibility and limited government, gun control is often seen less as “safety policy” and more as a pathway to broader regulation that burdens compliant citizens while failing to stop criminals.

Talarico’s challenge, then, is not merely messaging. It is the substantive difficulty of persuading a wide range of Texas voters—many of whom are independents or cross-pressured Democrats as well as Republicans—that more restrictions will make them safer without eroding their rights. In practice, that’s a tough sell in a state where firearms ownership is common, training and lawful carry are widely valued, and distrust of top-down mandates runs deep.

As the Senate campaign develops, the central test will be whether Talarico maintains his gun-control positions or recalibrates to meet the reality of Texas voters’ expectations around the Second Amendment. Either way, the debate is likely to focus on a familiar question for Texans: whether elected officials will treat the right to keep and bear arms as a protected liberty—or as a policy lever to be tightened whenever political winds shift.
Illinois Gun Owners Urged to Oppose Proposed “Backdoor” Handgun Ban

My Right To Carry News Team

June 13, 2026

Illinois gun owners are being asked to act quickly in response to what advocates describe as an indirect attempt to restrict access to handguns. The alert focuses on a developing push in Springfield that, in their view, would function like a handgun ban without using that label.

Supporters of the action warning argue that the approach relies on regulatory and legislative mechanisms that could effectively choke off lawful handgun ownership. They frame the issue as part of a broader pattern in Illinois politics: using administrative hurdles and indirect prohibitions rather than straightforward votes on a clear ban.

The message to residents is not simply informational; it is a call to get directly involved. Readers are encouraged to contact state lawmakers and make their opposition known while the situation is still in motion, emphasizing that timing matters when bills or policy changes are moving through the process.

From a conservative and libertarian standpoint, the concern is that policies like this shift power away from ordinary citizens and toward government gatekeepers, limiting constitutional rights through technical compliance traps. Critics argue that such measures punish peaceable gun owners while doing little to address violent criminals who ignore firearm laws.

The central request is for Illinois residents to participate in the political process—communicating with elected officials and pushing back against any proposal that would reduce the practical ability to buy or own a handgun. The overall objective is to stop what the organizers characterize as a “backdoor” handgun ban before it becomes state policy.
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.
Virginia Senators Push Federal Gun-Control Agenda Beyond State Lines

My Right To Carry News Team

May 2, 2026

Two U.S. senators from Virginia are being criticized by gun-rights advocates for promoting a national approach to firearms policy that mirrors strategies used in their home state. Critics argue the effort is designed to export restrictive measures nationwide rather than leave such decisions to states and local communities.

The concern, as framed by opponents, is not simply about individual bills but about a broader governing philosophy that treats gun ownership as something to be constrained through layered regulations. From a conservative and libertarian perspective, that approach is viewed as incompatible with the Second Amendment and with the idea that constitutional rights should not depend on shifting political majorities.

Gun-rights groups also object to the federalization of policies that have been fought over at the state level, warning that a Washington-driven framework can override regional differences and weaken accountability. They argue that when rules are set nationally, citizens have fewer practical options to resist, revise, or replace policies that they believe infringe on fundamental liberties.

The push has been characterized by critics as part of a larger national gun-control campaign in which elected officials use federal power to impose limitations that might not pass in many states on their own. Opponents say this strategy relies on central authority to achieve outcomes that are politically difficult to secure through a more decentralized system.

Supporters of stronger gun restrictions generally frame their priorities as public-safety measures, while opponents counter that the practical effect is to burden lawful owners rather than stop criminals. In that view, expanding Virginia-style tactics across the country risks turning a contested state-level agenda into a uniform federal standard.

The dispute underscores an ongoing national divide: whether firearms policy should be tightened through broader regulation or whether policymakers should prioritize enforcement of existing laws while protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. For critics of the Virginia senators’ direction, the central issue is preventing what they see as an aggressive, top-down attempt to reshape gun rights across the entire United States.
Ragin’ Cajun Discusses Claims About Democrats’ One-Party Rule Strategy

My Right To Carry News Team

April 27, 2026

James Carville, the longtime Democratic strategist known as the “Ragin’ Cajun” and a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, is drawing fresh attention today after laying out what critics are calling a blueprint for Democrats to lock in lasting power if they regain unified control of Washington next year.

The comments being circulated come from a recent argument Carville made about what Democrats should do if they win back both chambers of Congress. In that scenario, he said Democrats should act immediately to grant statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico—an outcome that would add four new U.S. Senate seats. He also argued for expanding the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 justices.

Carville’s framing wasn’t limited to the policy proposals themselves. The line now being cited as the core of the “one-party rule” interpretation is his advice about messaging: he urged Democrats not to campaign on the plan and not to publicly debate it ahead of time, instead pushing for swift action after the election. In his words: “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”

Those remarks are now being presented by opponents as a strategy built around winning first and formalizing structural changes later—especially changes that would reshape two institutions central to federal power: the Senate and the Supreme Court.

How this is being framed as a “one-party rule” playbook
Supporters of Carville’s approach describe it as hardball politics and a response to long-running fights over representation and the courts. Critics frame it differently: they argue that adding states to change the Senate’s partisan balance and increasing the number of justices to shift the Supreme Court’s direction would amount to institutional redesign for partisan advantage.

The underlying mechanics are not in dispute. Congress has the authority to admit new states under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution. Congress also sets the size of the Supreme Court; the current structure is one chief justice and eight associate justices.

Court expansion, in particular, has been part of national political debate in recent election cycles. Carville’s comments revive that debate now, with critics contending that a larger court would be used to produce outcomes aligned with Democratic priorities—including, in this framing, decisions less protective of Second Amendment claims.

What Democratic officials involved are saying right now
At the moment, Carville is not speaking as an officeholder, and the proposals he raised—D.C. statehood, Puerto Rico statehood, and Supreme Court expansion—are not new concepts in Democratic politics. But his blunt instruction to avoid campaigning on the plan is what is intensifying the political reaction today, as opponents argue it signals a willingness to pursue sweeping changes without first making the case directly to voters.

As debate over these ideas continues in real time, Democratic leaders who support statehood initiatives generally argue that statehood is a question of democratic representation rather than party advantage. Likewise, officials and candidates who have discussed Supreme Court changes typically present their arguments as court reform, while critics interpret the same proposals as court packing.

Why this matters in the current policy fight
For gun policy advocates watching the 2026 landscape, the dispute isn’t just about abstract governance. The argument being made by opponents of Carville’s approach is that structural power determines policy outcomes: if Senate math changes and the Supreme Court changes, then major federal policy shifts become easier to pass and harder to overturn.

That concern is being tied to ongoing state-level action. In Virginia, Gov. Abigail Spanberger is currently weighing what to do next after SB 749 was sent to her by the legislature. The bill would ban purchases of many Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), semiautomatic shotguns commonly used for hunting and home defense, many pistols, and standard-capacity magazines. Spanberger previously pledged during her campaign to pursue strict gun control, and the situation has prompted increased firearms purchasing in Virginia as residents act before any new restrictions take effect.

Critics argue that what is happening in Virginia offers a preview of what could follow at the federal level if Democrats gain the ability to move major legislation and shape the courts reviewing it. The list of federal priorities they cite includes bans on semiautomatic rifles, confiscation proposals, bans on popular handguns, repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), requiring universal background checks, creating a federal gun ownership registry, banking policies that could restrict financial services to the industry, and bans affecting traditional ammunition.

Carville’s quote, and why it’s driving headlines
Carville’s remarks are being replayed because they combine a specific set of structural proposals with an unusually direct political instruction about timing and public messaging. In a longer statement that’s now widely quoted, he said: “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. *expletive* Eat our dust,” he said.

Whether voters view that as practical political strategy or as an attempt to engineer durable advantage is now a central part of the story. Either way, the comments are giving new energy to debates about statehood, Supreme Court size, and how openly major institutional changes should be campaigned on before Election Day.
Virginia Gun Control Bill Nears Final Form After Legislature Rejects Governor’s Key Change

My Right To Carry News Team

April 24, 2026

Virginia’s gun-control package is now close to its endgame after lawmakers turned aside several of Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s most consequential requested edits, a decision that narrows what will change immediately and clarifies what still hinges on her next move.

The turning point came Wednesday, when the Democratically controlled Senate and House of Delegates voted on multiple recommendations Spanberger sent back to them. Virginia’s process gives the governor unusual leverage at this late stage, allowing her to propose alterations after bills have already cleared the General Assembly. This week’s votes show that leverage has limits when the legislature isn’t willing to expand a bill beyond what it originally passed.

The biggest practical effect of the rejection involves ammunition magazines. Spanberger had pushed for a tighter approach that would have functioned as a carry ban on magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Lawmakers declined to adopt that change, meaning the final version won’t include that added restriction she sought.

Legislators also refused another significant request tied to the new ban on guns in mental health hospitals. The governor wanted to remove an exception included by the legislature, but the House and Senate voted against stripping it out. As a result, the exception remains part of the bill that’s heading back to the executive branch.

Even with the governor’s preferred expansions blocked, the overall scope of Virginia’s 2026 gun policy changes remains large. As of this week, 11 new gun-control bills have already completed the legislative process to the point that they’ve “made it across the finish line,” though two of the most far-reaching measures are still, at least technically, unresolved.

Now, the measures lawmakers declined to amend return to Spanberger’s desk. From here, she has three options on each bill: sign it, veto it, or do nothing and allow it to become law without her signature. Those choices will determine not only which restrictions take effect, but also how quickly Virginia’s new rules solidify after a session that’s already produced the state’s biggest shift in gun policy in a long time.