gun rights

Supreme Court Narrows Gun Ban for Drug Users, Raising Big Questions for Future Cases

My Right To Carry News Team

June 19, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a man who had been prosecuted for possessing firearms while using one of the most widely used recreational drugs in America. While the decision delivered a clear win for that defendant, the Court’s reasoning was limited in scope, leaving major practical questions for gun owners, prosecutors, and lower courts.

At the center of the dispute was how federal law treats firearm possession when a person is a user of that drug. The Court’s outcome signaled that the government’s theory in this case went too far, at least as applied to the specific circumstances before the justices. In doing so, the Court drew a line that protects individual rights in a narrow slice of situations, rather than issuing a broad ruling that would settle every variation of the issue.

That narrowness is where the real-world consequences begin. When the Supreme Court resolves a case without sweeping language, the result often shifts the main battles to trial courts and federal appellate courts. Defendants may now argue that similar prosecutions should fail, but the government can respond that the ruling is confined to a particular fact pattern. This sets up a period of uneven application across jurisdictions as judges interpret what, exactly, the decision does and does not cover.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the case underscores a recurring tension: expanding criminal prohibitions around firearm ownership can collide with constitutional protections, especially when the underlying conduct—drug use—has become common and is treated very differently depending on the state. A ruling that is technically narrow can still matter a great deal because it may deter some prosecutions, change plea negotiations, or influence how aggressively federal authorities pursue cases involving gun possession and personal drug use.

The decision also highlights the practical uncertainty that arises when major cultural shifts outpace federal statutes. Even without a sweeping declaration, the Court’s holding may reshape the strategy on both sides of the courtroom in future cases dealing with guns, controlled substances, and who counts as prohibited from exercising a fundamental right. For now, the ruling answers the question for one defendant, while leaving the broader landscape to be sorted out through further litigation.
Supreme Court Unanimously Overturns Federal Gun Ban for Habitual Marijuana Users

My Right To Carry News Team

June 18, 2026

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 Turns Away Two New York Second Amendment Petitions, Relists 25 Other Gun Case

My Right To Carry News Team

June 18, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to take up two separate Second Amendment disputes aimed at New York gun regulations. With those denials, the justices leave the challenged New York rules in place for now and decline to review the lower-court outcomes.

At the same time, the Court is still weighing a broader group of firearms-related petitions. Rather than issuing final decisions across the board, the justices continue to consider numerous Second Amendment cases that have been presented for review.

One clear sign of that continued consideration is the Court’s decision to relist another gun case for a future conference. In Supreme Court practice, a relist means the justices did not resolve the petition at their first opportunity and instead returned it to the agenda for additional internal review.

According to the report, the Court relisted 25 other gun case. That move indicates the Court has not finished evaluating whether it wants to step in on at least some of the ongoing disputes involving firearm laws and the scope of the Second Amendment.

From a constitutional and liberty-minded perspective, the mixed signals are notable: New York’s contested restrictions avoid immediate scrutiny from the nation’s highest court, while many other Second Amendment challenges remain in a holding pattern. For gun owners and civil-liberties advocates watching for clear guidance, the result is continued uncertainty as the Court decides which, if any, of these cases will ultimately be heard.
Colorado Supreme Court: At-Will Workers Can’t Be Fired for Lawful Self-Defense on the Job

My Right To Carry News Team

June 17, 2026

Colorado’s highest court has ruled that a private company cannot dismiss an at-will employee simply for using lawful self-defense while working. The decision came from the Colorado Supreme Court on Monday, June 15, 2026, and it was decided by a 5-2 vote.

The case, Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., centered on whether an employer’s policies and liability concerns can override an individual’s right to protect themselves from immediate danger. The court’s ruling makes clear that when a worker responds lawfully to an imminent threat, that act cannot be treated as grounds for termination.

In its opinion, the court emphasized that self-defense is not a privilege that disappears when someone clocks in. The justices concluded that a person’s fundamental constitutional protections remain intact in the workplace, even in an at-will employment relationship.

The ruling also addressed the argument that corporate risk management and insurance-driven rules should control how workers respond during emergencies. The court rejected the idea that liability policies can be used to strip workers of basic rights, underscoring that private employers do not get to nullify constitutional protections through internal rules.

For employees across Colorado, the decision establishes a clearer boundary between workplace policies and individual rights. From a libertarian perspective, the outcome reinforces a core principle: individuals retain the right to defend their lives, and private corporate policies cannot lawfully punish people for exercising that right when facing imminent danger.
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.
GOA and GOF Ask Virginia Supreme Court to Weigh In Early on Potential “Assault Firearms” Ban

My Right To Carry News Team

June 16, 2026

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have turned to the Virginia Supreme Court seeking an early legal decision tied to a proposed statewide restriction they describe as a looming “assault firearms” ban. The groups are asking the court for a preliminary ruling, aiming to clarify the legal landscape before the policy takes effect or advances further.

The petition centers on the groups’ contention that the state is moving toward a ban affecting firearms they label “assault firearms.” Rather than waiting for later stages of enforcement or additional litigation steps, GOA and GOF are asking the state’s highest court to address the matter at the front end, arguing that early review is warranted given the scope of the issue.

From a constitutional-rights perspective, this approach reflects a push to prevent the kind of uncertainty that can follow when governments expand restrictions first and resolve core legal questions later. Supporters of the petition see an early ruling as a way to protect Virginians from shifting rules that could affect law-abiding gun owners, firearm retailers, and others trying to follow the law without facing abrupt changes or unclear standards.

The filing places the Virginia Supreme Court in a key role, as any preliminary guidance from the court could shape how the dispute proceeds and how state officials, lawmakers, and residents understand the legality of the proposed ban. GOA and GOF are positioning the court as the appropriate venue to provide that clarification sooner rather than after prolonged conflict.

The dispute also underscores the larger policy fight in Virginia over gun control proposals and the boundaries of state power when regulating commonly owned firearms. As GOA and GOF press for early judicial review, the next steps will depend on whether the Virginia Supreme Court agrees to take up the request and issue the preliminary ruling the organizations are seeking.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman Revives HEAR Act to Prohibit Suppressors

My Right To Carry News Team

June 16, 2026

A new push in Congress is targeting firearm suppressors, reigniting a familiar dispute over what “common sense” should mean in federal gun policy. Critics of gun-control legislation argue that these efforts repeatedly focus more on regulating people than on addressing criminal misuse, and they say the latest proposal fits that pattern.

At the center of the renewed debate is U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Democrat from New Jersey. She has reintroduced federal legislation called the Help Empower Americans to Respond Act, commonly referred to as the HEAR Act. The proposal is framed by supporters as a public-safety measure, but opponents contend the bill’s branding is misleading and that its practical effect would be a broad ban on suppressors.

Suppressors are often a flashpoint because their name invites misconceptions. Those who favor fewer restrictions emphasize that suppressors are not “silencers” in the Hollywood sense and that their primary value is reducing noise exposure for shooters and people nearby. From a libertarian-leaning view, the underlying concern is that lawmakers are again placing new limits on a piece of safety-related equipment rather than focusing enforcement on those who commit crimes.

The reintroduction of the HEAR Act also highlights a recurring political strategy in Washington: reintroducing previously proposed gun-control measures and packaging them under appealing titles. Opponents argue that the “common sense” label is frequently used to sell policies that would criminalize ordinary ownership and lawful use, while doing little to deter individuals already willing to break existing laws.

As the legislation returns to the congressional agenda, gun-rights advocates are signaling firm resistance. They see the HEAR Act as another attempt to expand federal restrictions on lawful firearm accessories, and they argue that such proposals continue to shift decision-making away from individuals and toward centralized regulation.
NSSF Backs Cornyn’s SHOT Act to Reinforce PLCAA and Curb Public Nuisance Lawsuits

My Right To Carry News Team

June 14, 2026

NSSF, which represents the firearm industry as a trade association, voiced support for new federal legislation introduced in Washington, D.C., saying it would help stop a wave of public nuisance lawsuits aimed at lawful businesses in the gun sector.

The proposal is S. 4775, titled the Stopping Harmful and Outrageous Torts (SHOT) Act. NSSF says the bill is designed to reinforce the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law intended to limit improper litigation that tries to hold manufacturers and sellers responsible for criminal misuse of their products.

According to NSSF, the bill was introduced by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas. The organization argues that courts have allowed certain public nuisance claims to proceed in ways that invite costly and sprawling lawsuits, even when the businesses being sued have complied with existing laws and regulations.

From a limited-government perspective, NSSF frames these cases as an attempt to achieve policy outcomes through the courts rather than through elected legislatures. The association says the SHOT Act would close avenues for what it describes as meritless suits that can function as de facto regulation through litigation and impose major legal burdens regardless of the final outcome.

NSSF’s statement casts the measure as a straightforward effort to strengthen PLCAA’s protections so that lawful commerce in firearms is not targeted by litigation theories that treat legally made and legally sold products as a public nuisance. The organization is urging attention to the bill’s goal of preventing such lawsuits from moving forward.
Do DUI Convictions Justify Losing Gun Rights? How Courts Are Weighing the Second Amendment

My Right To Carry News Team

June 14, 2026

A recurring question in Second Amendment debates is whether past misconduct that does not necessarily involve firearms can be used to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms. One of the most contested examples is driving under the influence, a crime tied to public safety risks but typically unrelated to gun ownership itself.

The issue has come into sharper focus as courts continue to interpret what the Constitution permits after the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment rulings. The central dispute is straightforward: does a person’s history of drunk driving show they are so dangerous that the government may permanently or broadly disarm them, even if their offenses happened on the road rather than with a weapon?

At least one state supreme court has indicated the answer can be yes. In that court’s view, a record of DUI offenses can be treated as a sufficient basis to overcome an individual’s claim to keep and bear arms, effectively allowing firearm rights to be denied or removed because of repeated alcohol-impaired driving.

From a libertarian and conservative perspective, that approach raises concerns about how far the “dangerousness” rationale can be stretched. If the government can point to a non-gun criminal history—like drunk driving—as grounds for disarmament, critics worry the category could expand over time, shifting the right from a protected constitutional guarantee to something contingent on broad judgments about a person’s past conduct.

Supporters of a narrower view argue that DUI laws already impose significant penalties tailored to the offense—license suspensions, fines, jail time, monitoring, and other restrictions—without rewriting the boundaries of a fundamental right. They contend that, absent a direct connection to firearms misuse or a clearly defined constitutional exception, courts should be cautious about using DUI histories as a stand-in for a blanket determination that someone is unfit to exercise Second Amendment rights.
Gun Owners of America Backs Byron Donalds in Florida Governor Race

My Right To Carry News Team

June 12, 2026

Gun Owners of America has announced its endorsement of Congressman Byron Donalds in the contest for Florida governor. The organization’s backing places Donalds among the candidates drawing early support from major Second Amendment advocates as Florida voters look ahead to the state’s next gubernatorial election.

The endorsement reflects GOA’s emphasis on protecting the right to keep and bear arms and resisting new restrictions on lawful gun ownership. From a conservative and libertarian standpoint, endorsements like this serve as a clear signal to voters who prioritize constitutional liberties and limited government involvement in personal choices, including self-defense.

Donalds, a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is the candidate GOA is aligning with in Florida’s governor race. GOA’s decision highlights the group’s view that the state’s leadership should remain committed to safeguarding firearm rights and maintaining a political environment where law-abiding citizens are not treated as suspects for exercising a constitutional freedom.

For gun-rights voters, the endorsement is also a reminder that gubernatorial elections have practical consequences. Florida’s governor can influence the direction of state policy, the selection of key officials, and the broader approach to public safety and individual rights—areas where Second Amendment groups frequently argue that enforcement should focus on violent criminals rather than new limits on responsible citizens.

As the campaign season develops, GOA’s endorsement adds to the growing list of markers that candidates will use to define their priorities for Florida’s future. Voters who view the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment as central issues are likely to weigh endorsements such as this when evaluating who they believe will best defend those principles in the governor’s office.