My Right To Carry

gun policy

  • Foushee Bill Would Create CDC-Run Gun “Prevention” Research Database With Federal Funding

    Foushee Bill Would Create CDC-Run Gun “Prevention” Research Database With Federal Funding

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    A new proposal in Congress would assign the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a major role in collecting and distributing academic work labeled as “gun violence prevention” research. Supporters describe the idea as a way to centralize information for the public, while critics argue it would use federal resources to elevate a policy agenda that typically aligns with gun-control activism.

    The legislation was introduced by U.S. Rep. Valerie Foushee, a Democrat from North Carolina. Her bill is titled the Gun Violence Prevention and Public Safety Database Act of 2026, and it is filed as H.R. 9274. The measure would require the CDC to create and manage a federal database focused on “gun violence prevention” research.

    Under the proposal, the database would be publicly accessible. In practice, that means the federal government would not only assemble the collection but also host it for broad public use. The bill directs the CDC to build and maintain this database as an ongoing federal project.

    From a conservative and libertarian standpoint, the concern is less about whether research should exist and more about which institution is tasked with curating it, what standards are used to select material, and how that curation could influence public debate. Assigning the CDC—an agency with substantial national authority—to oversee a topic as politically contested as firearms policy raises questions about viewpoint balance and whether taxpayers would end up underwriting advocacy presented as neutral public health information.

    Because H.R. 9274 centers specifically on “gun violence prevention” research, opponents worry the framing could predispose the database toward conclusions that favor restrictions rather than presenting a broad, even-handed range of findings. As debate over the bill develops, the key issues likely to draw attention will include how “gun violence prevention” is defined, what qualifies for inclusion, and how the CDC would ensure the database is not effectively a federally funded megaphone for one side of the gun policy argument.

  • Where Virginia’s Gun Laws Stand Today (with Cam Edwards)

    Where Virginia’s Gun Laws Stand Today (with Cam Edwards)

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Virginia’s latest push to tighten gun policy has reached the point where the only move left is the governor’s. The General Assembly has wrapped up its work on the final gun-bill language, and now Gov. Abigail Spanberger is weighing whether to sign the measures as delivered or reject them with a veto.

    The immediate question is what to make of the legislature’s response to the governor’s requested edits. Lawmakers adopted seven of Spanberger’s recommended changes to the bills they passed. But they declined two of the changes she treated as the biggest priorities, including a major revision she sought for the “assault firearms” ban. Because those changes didn’t make it into the final versions, Spanberger is now staring at a straightforward decision: approve the original language that landed on her desk or stop the bills altogether.

    To track what happens next, I’ve been following the discussion with Virginia-based gun commentator Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms, who’s been watching the personalities and the politics as closely as the policy details. Edwards’ read is that friction between the governor’s office and legislative leadership likely helped shape the decision to dismiss her proposed edits. Even so, he doesn’t think irritation between the branches is enough to make a veto the most likely outcome for either bill.

    What’s not really in dispute is the scale of what’s being considered. Edwards agrees that the package, taken as a whole, ranks among the most far-reaching set of state-level gun restrictions enacted in at least a decade. That matters for more than just the legal text. In his view, the breadth of the proposals could weigh on Spanberger and fellow Democrats politically, potentially giving Republicans room to run stronger than expected in next year’s elections.

    At the same time, he cautions against assuming the fight ends with one signature or one veto. Edwards sees a plausible scenario where, regardless of how this round is resolved, lawmakers could return before the next election and pursue even stricter limits—essentially revisiting the issue with an even heavier hand.

    In the near term, Edwards expects the center of gravity to shift quickly from the Capitol to the courthouse. He believes much of the immediate action around these bills will be driven by litigation, as opponents look for ways to block or narrow the laws if they take effect. But he also points out that court challenges aren’t guaranteed victories for gun-rights groups, especially given the obstacles they can face in federal court.

    So the next steps are clear: with the legislature finished and the governor holding the pen, Virginia is in a short window where the outcome hinges on Spanberger’s final call—followed, quite possibly, by a new phase of political and legal conflict depending on what she decides.