My Right To Carry

lawsuit

  • NSSF Backs Lawsuit Challenging Virginia’s HB 217 and SB 749 Firearm Ban

    NSSF Backs Lawsuit Challenging Virginia’s HB 217 and SB 749 Firearm Ban

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    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

    Florida AG Sues Jacksonville, Seeks $5 Million Over Alleged Firearm Check-In Records

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    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.

  • New York AG Letitia James Argues Civilian Body Armor Is Not Protected by the Second Amendment

    New York AG Letitia James Argues Civilian Body Armor Is Not Protected by the Second Amendment

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    New York Attorney General Letitia James is asking a court to throw out a lawsuit aimed at overturning the state’s prohibition on most civilian purchases of body armor. The request is part of an ongoing legal dispute over whether protective gear used for personal safety falls within constitutional protections connected to self-defense.

    At the center of the case is a challenge brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, which is contesting New York’s restrictions and seeking to restore access for ordinary residents. The lawsuit directly targets the state’s ban on civilian body armor purchases and frames the issue as one that should be evaluated through the lens of modern self-defense needs.

    In pressing for dismissal, James is taking the position that body armor is not covered by the Second Amendment. That argument draws a line between firearms-related rights and protective equipment, asserting that the constitutional guarantee does not extend to the purchase of armor by civilians.

    Supporters of the challenge contend that the ability to defend oneself is not limited to offensive tools and that protecting one’s life is inseparable from the broader concept of self-defense. From a libertarian perspective, restricting peaceful citizens from acquiring defensive protection shifts power away from individuals and toward the state, even as everyday people remain responsible for their own safety in unpredictable situations.

    The legal battle highlights a broader national debate about how constitutional rights apply to contemporary safety concerns. With New York fighting to keep its ban in place and the Firearms Policy Coalition pushing back in court, the outcome could shape how far governments can go in limiting access to commonly sought protective gear in the name of regulation.