gun rights

Eighth Circuit Rejects Lawsuit Over Minnesota’s Gun Permit Reciprocity Limits

My Right To Carry News Team

May 27, 2026

A federal appeals court has declined to revive a legal challenge aimed at forcing Minnesota to honor more out-of-state handgun carry permits, leaving the state’s current reciprocity boundaries in place. The ruling means Minnesota can continue refusing to recognize certain permits issued elsewhere without being found in violation of the Second Amendment.

The decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which dismissed the case rather than sending it forward for further litigation. With that dismissal, Minnesota’s existing approach to recognizing permits from other states remains intact.

At the center of the dispute was Minnesota’s policy of accepting some outside carry permits while not recognizing others. The plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should prevent the state from denying validity to certain permits held by nonresidents or issued under other states’ standards.

The appellate court did not adopt that theory. By concluding the lawsuit could not proceed, the court effectively accepted that Minnesota’s continued refusal to honor particular carry permits is not, by itself, a constitutional violation under the Second Amendment.

For gun owners and advocates of nationwide carry recognition, the outcome underscores how much discretion states still have in setting reciprocity rules, even after major Second Amendment decisions in recent years. Unless a different court reaches a contrary conclusion or lawmakers change the rules, Minnesota’s selective recognition of out-of-state carry permits will continue.
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Pressed to Advance Constitutional Carry and Reinforce Statewide Firearms Preemption

My Right To Carry News Team

May 25, 2026

Gun-rights advocates in Pennsylvania are urging state lawmakers to move quickly on a package of priorities they say would protect lawful gun owners from shifting local rules and political backlash. The focus is on advancing “constitutional carry,” tightening statewide preemption of local gun regulations, and blocking what supporters describe as retaliatory restrictions aimed at discouraging firearms ownership and carry.

Supporters of constitutional carry argue that peaceable adults should not be required to obtain a government-issued permit to carry a firearm for self-defense. They contend that permitting systems can create unnecessary delays and costs for people who have done nothing wrong, while doing little to deter criminals who ignore the law. From this perspective, the aim is to treat the right to carry as a fundamental liberty rather than a privilege dependent on administrative approval.

At the same time, advocates are calling for stronger enforcement of Pennsylvania’s preemption framework, which is intended to keep firearm rules consistent statewide rather than allowing a patchwork of local ordinances. They warn that when cities or municipalities attempt to set their own gun rules, lawful residents can be put at risk of inadvertently violating unfamiliar regulations while traveling, working, or visiting family across county and city lines. In their view, uniform statewide standards are essential to protect due process and prevent selective enforcement.

The campaign also highlights opposition to what it characterizes as retaliatory gun control—new restrictions introduced in response to political pressure or as a punishment for pro-Second Amendment legislative efforts. Gun-rights supporters argue that such measures are often framed as public-safety initiatives but function in practice to burden compliant citizens, not violent offenders. They are asking legislators to stop any proposals they believe are designed to chill lawful ownership, purchase, or carry rather than target criminal misuse.

Advocates are directing their attention to the General Assembly and pressing elected officials to prioritize these issues in upcoming legislative action. They emphasize the importance of moving bills forward, strengthening preemption protections, and ensuring that local governments cannot impose rules that conflict with state law. For supporters, the broader goal is to secure robust protections for the right to keep and bear arms throughout Pennsylvania and prevent local or political maneuvers from narrowing that right.
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.
Support Efforts to Repeal the Hughes Amendment and Restore Rights for Law-Abiding Americans

My Right To Carry News Team

May 23, 2026

A long-standing federal restriction continues to shape what law-abiding Americans can legally own, even when they fully comply with background checks and other requirements. Supporters of the Second Amendment point to the Hughes Amendment as a central reason the supply of transferable, lawfully owned machine guns has been frozen for decades, driving scarcity and cost while doing little to address criminal misuse. The focus of current activism is straightforward: remove the federal prohibition created by that amendment.

The Hughes Amendment is commonly discussed as the 1986 change that barred civilians from acquiring newly manufactured machine guns for civilian possession, leaving only previously registered firearms eligible for transfer under the existing National Firearms Act system. That framework did not eliminate regulation; it limited what could be added to the legal registry going forward. As a result, only machine guns already in the registry before the cutoff can be transferred to qualified buyers, and that fixed pool has shaped the market ever since.

Second Amendment advocates argue that the restriction punishes compliance rather than crime. They contend that Americans who can pass the required federal background check, submit fingerprints and photographs when required, pay the applicable tax, and wait through the approval process should not face a categorical ban on newly manufactured transferable firearms. From a liberty-oriented perspective, the issue is less about expanding government processes and more about removing a blanket prohibition that applies to people who are already choosing the legal route.

The latest calls to action emphasize public involvement. Gun-rights supporters are encouraging readers and members to engage elected officials, keep informed on federal legislation, and back organizations that are working to overturn the Hughes Amendment. In this view, political pressure matters because Congress created the prohibition and Congress can undo it, but lawmakers typically move only when constituents make the issue unavoidable.

Advocates also stress that repealing the Hughes Amendment would not erase the existing regulatory structure for NFA items; it would change what can be registered and transferred in the future. They present the effort as a step toward aligning federal law with constitutional protections while treating responsible citizens as citizens, not suspects. For supporters, the goal is to restore the ability of qualified Americans to purchase newly made, legally registered machine guns under the same regulated process that already governs NFA transfers.
Second Circuit Rejects New York’s “Vampire Rule,” Restoring Default Carry on Private Property

My Right To Carry News Team

May 22, 2026

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.
Midterms Near, Polls Suggest Gun Policy Isn’t Driving Most Voters

My Right To Carry News Team

May 22, 2026

With the midterm elections drawing closer, the political conversation is intensifying across the country. Yet available indicators suggest that debates over firearms are not near the top of what most voters say is guiding their choices as Election Day approaches.

The latest discussion around voter priorities points to a familiar pattern in national politics: many people focus first on issues they feel most directly in their daily lives, while niche or lower-salience topics receive less attention. In that context, gun policy appears to be registering as a secondary concern for a broad share of the electorate, even as advocacy groups and political professionals continue to treat it as a perennial flashpoint.

That doesn’t mean firearm legislation has disappeared from public life. Rather, the current environment suggests that, for many voters, it is not the decisive factor shaping midterm preferences. Candidates may still stake out clear positions, and interest groups will still press them, but the issue is not showing the same broad voter urgency that drives top-tier campaign messaging.

For readers coming from a conservative or libertarian perspective, this lower level of public emphasis can be interpreted in a practical way. When voters are not prioritizing gun politics, it often creates more room to argue for core civil-liberties principles—such as individual rights and limited government—without campaigns being dominated by emotionally charged, reactive debates that tend to produce sweeping policy proposals.

As the midterms get closer, the overall takeaway is straightforward: while gun politics remain a constant part of America’s policy landscape, current signals indicate they are not commanding widespread voter attention in the same way as other concerns. The coming months will show whether that changes, but for now, firearms policy appears to sit well below the most motivating issues for many voters heading into the election.
Second Circuit Blocks New York’s Presumed Ban on Carrying Firearms on Private Property Open to the Public

My Right To Carry News Team

May 21, 2026

A federal appeals court has rejected a key part of New York’s approach to restricting where licensed citizens may carry firearms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded the state cannot treat privately owned property that is open to the public as automatically off-limits to permit holders.

At the center of the dispute was a New York rule critics dubbed the “vampire rule,” a reference to the idea that lawful carry rights effectively disappear unless a property owner gives explicit permission. Under that framework, a person with a valid carry license could be presumed barred from bringing a firearm onto any private property that is publicly accessible unless the owner affirmatively allowed it.

The Second Circuit’s decision means New York may not impose a blanket presumption that licensed carry is forbidden across all such locations. Instead, the ruling recognizes that property owners remain free to set their own policies, but the state cannot preemptively convert every publicly accessible private space into a default prohibited zone for law-abiding licensees.

The case highlights an ongoing tension between broad state-level restrictions and the day-to-day reality of ordinary places people pass through—shops, businesses, and other privately owned locations that invite the public in. From a liberty-minded perspective, the decision reinforces the principle that constitutional rights should not be treated as privileges that vanish in most real-world settings by default.

While the ruling narrows New York’s ability to presume a ban, it does not remove a property owner’s authority to decide what is allowed on their premises. The key change is who makes the choice: the court’s decision prevents the state from making the default decision for every owner and every publicly accessible private property as a matter of law.
GOA Backs Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Proposal to Repeal the Machine Gun Tax

My Right To Carry News Team

May 21, 2026

Gun Owners of America has announced its support for legislation introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert that would remove the federal tax applied to automatic weapons. The organization’s endorsement centers on eliminating the existing tax burden that applies to these firearms under current federal law.

Boebert’s measure targets the tax requirement tied to automatic weapons and would end that specific federal charge if enacted. The proposal has drawn attention within Second Amendment advocacy circles as a direct change to how the federal government treats these firearms.

In its statement backing the bill, Gun Owners of America framed the issue as one of protecting constitutional rights and reducing federal barriers. From a limited-government perspective, the group’s position reflects a broader argument that lawful gun ownership should not be conditioned on special federal taxation.

The endorsement also highlights how national gun-rights organizations are prioritizing legislative efforts that address not only bans and regulations, but also cost-based restrictions. Supporters typically view these taxes as a policy tool that can discourage ownership through financial pressure rather than through an outright prohibition.

For now, the development is the introduction of the bill and GOA’s public support for it, setting the stage for continued debate in Congress over whether the tax on automatic weapons should remain in place or be repealed.
Virginia Gov. Spanberger Enacts SB 749 Assault Weapons Ban, Prompting Two Rapid-Fire Legal Challenges

My Right To Carry News Team

May 18, 2026

Virginia has enacted a major new firearms restriction after Governor Abigail Spanberger signed Senate Bill 749 into law. The measure creates a statewide prohibition on what the statute labels “assault weapons” as well as a ban on “high-capacity” magazines.

The law is not immediate. Its effective date is set for July 1, 2026, giving residents, retailers, and law enforcement a defined timeline before the new rules take effect.

Even with that delayed start, opponents moved quickly to contest the policy in court. The signing was followed right away by two separate lawsuits, each taking a different route to challenge the legislation.

One case was filed in Virginia’s state courts by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). Their approach relies on a distinctive argument grounded solely in the Virginia Constitution, aiming to keep the dispute framed as a state-law question rather than a federal one.

A second challenge was filed in federal court by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). That filing is structured to pursue a streamlined path that seeks to avoid review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and instead position the case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court as directly as possible.

Together, the paired lawsuits set up a two-front legal fight—one focusing on state constitutional claims and the other targeting federal review—over a law that bans specified firearms and magazines across Virginia beginning July 1, 2026.
NRA Cuts Legal Spending and Builds Assets in 2025, Even as Membership Dues Keep Falling

My Right To Carry News Team

May 15, 2026

The National Rifle Association reported a stronger financial position in 2025, showing higher assets and a noticeable reduction in overall spending. The organization’s latest numbers indicate it managed to slow its financial slide compared with recent years, even as one key revenue stream continued to weaken.

A major driver of the improved cost picture was a sharp pullback in legal outlays. After years in which courtroom fights and related expenses weighed heavily on the NRA’s budget, 2025 reflected a year in which those legal costs were substantially reduced, helping the group bring total expenses down.

At the same time, the organization’s asset base increased during the year. That growth, paired with the spending cuts, suggests the NRA was able to stabilize operations and shore up its balance sheet, at least in the near term, despite operating in a challenging political and regulatory environment.

However, the numbers also show continuing softness in the group’s membership-driven income. Revenue from member dues declined again in 2025, indicating that the NRA’s ability to rely on grassroots financial support is still under pressure, even though the overall financial picture improved.

From a pro-Second Amendment and limited-government perspective, the report highlights the practical reality that major advocacy groups can be forced to divert significant resources into legal defense when targeted by political opponents or regulators. While the NRA’s reduced legal spending and higher assets mark a step toward financial steadiness in 2025, the continued drop in dues revenue shows the organization still faces the longer-term task of rebuilding and retaining its membership support.