legislation

  • Pennsylvania Gun Owners Urged to Oppose Harrisburg “Lock Up Your Safety” Storage Bill

    Pennsylvania Gun Owners Urged to Oppose Harrisburg “Lock Up Your Safety” Storage Bill

    A new push in Harrisburg is drawing criticism from gun-rights advocates who say it would penalize responsible Pennsylvanians while doing little to address violent crime. Opponents have labeled the proposal the “Lock Up Your Safety” bill, arguing it effectively mandates government-approved firearm storage in the home.

    Supporters of the right to keep and bear arms contend that mandatory storage requirements can slow or prevent lawful self-defense, particularly during emergencies when seconds matter. From this viewpoint, the policy risks turning ordinary citizens into targets by making it harder to access a firearm quickly when confronted with a home invasion or other immediate threat.

    Critics also warn that such rules invite enforcement problems and legal exposure for law-abiding people. They argue that once storage methods are dictated by statute, accidental noncompliance could become a criminal issue, even when no harm has occurred. In their view, this shifts the focus from prosecuting criminals to regulating the private conduct of peaceful residents.

    Gun-rights activists are urging Pennsylvanians to contact state lawmakers in Harrisburg to oppose the measure. They frame the issue as both a practical concern—ensuring families can defend themselves—and a constitutional one—preventing state government from imposing broad restrictions on how firearms may be kept inside the home.

    The debate is unfolding in the Pennsylvania Capitol as advocacy groups mobilize supporters to speak up quickly. Opponents of the proposal say the legislature should prioritize policies aimed at violent offenders rather than expanding regulations that primarily affect citizens who already follow the law.

  • GOA Backs Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Proposal to Repeal the Machine Gun Tax

    GOA Backs Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Proposal to Repeal the Machine Gun Tax

    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.

  • Vermont Senate Moves S. 329 Forward to Ban Firearms in Bars and Alcohol-Serving Restaurants

    Vermont Senate Moves S. 329 Forward to Ban Firearms in Bars and Alcohol-Serving Restaurants

    A proposal in Montpelier is gaining traction that would create a uniform statewide rule limiting where firearms may be carried. The Vermont Senate has advanced S. 329, a measure aimed at prohibiting firearms inside bars and in restaurants that serve alcohol.

    Supporters of the bill argue that the state should set one consistent policy rather than leaving the issue to piecemeal local action. In practice, S. 329 is intended to replace a separate effort tied to Burlington—an attempted charter change that has remained stuck for an extended period—by establishing a single standard across Vermont.

    The Senate’s initial approval came through a vote split along party lines. While the bill is moving ahead legislatively, it is already heading toward a major obstacle at the executive level.

    Governor Phil Scott is widely expected to reject the measure if it reaches his desk. He has previously indicated doubts about whether such a prohibition can be effectively enforced, raising questions about how the policy would work in real-world settings.

    For Vermonters who prioritize individual liberty and consistent statewide rules, the debate is likely to center on whether restricting lawful carry in specific public venues improves safety or mainly creates new compliance issues for responsible citizens. As S. 329 continues through the process, the prospects for enactment appear tied not only to legislative votes, but also to the likelihood of a gubernatorial veto.

  • New Hampshire Senate Faces Deadline on Campus Carry Vote

    New Hampshire Senate Faces Deadline on Campus Carry Vote

    New Hampshire gun-rights advocates are focusing their attention on the State Senate, urging senators to act immediately on campus carry. Supporters argue that lawmakers have reached a decisive moment and that the next scheduled action is an opportunity to follow through on prior commitments.

    The measure at the center of the dispute involves whether lawful firearm carry should be allowed on college and university property. Backers frame the issue as one of equal rights and personal security, maintaining that adults who can legally carry elsewhere in the state should not lose that ability simply because they step onto a campus.

    According to the call-to-action circulating from advocates, the Senate is expected to take up the campus carry question tomorrow. That timeline has sparked intensified outreach aimed at senators, with supporters pushing for a clear “yes” vote rather than delays, amendments that weaken the proposal, or procedural maneuvers that stall a final outcome.

    From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the argument is fundamentally about limiting bureaucratic control and preserving individual liberty. Proponents contend that campus policies and administrative rules should not override statewide protections for lawful carry, and they emphasize that self-defense is a personal responsibility that does not stop at the edge of a school’s property line.

    The coming Senate action is being treated as a test of whether elected officials will deliver on what advocates describe as a straightforward promise: protect the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry for self-defense, including on campus. With the vote expected tomorrow, supporters are pressing senators to align their decision with constitutional rights and consistent statewide standards.

  • New Hampshire Senate Faces Deadline on Campus Carry Vote

    New Hampshire Senate Faces Deadline on Campus Carry Vote

    New Hampshire gun-rights advocates are focusing their attention on the State Senate, urging senators to act immediately on campus carry. Supporters argue that lawmakers have reached a decisive moment and that the next scheduled action is an opportunity to follow through on prior commitments.

    The measure at the center of the dispute involves whether lawful firearm carry should be allowed on college and university property. Backers frame the issue as one of equal rights and personal security, maintaining that adults who can legally carry elsewhere in the state should not lose that ability simply because they step onto a campus.

    According to the call-to-action circulating from advocates, the Senate is expected to take up the campus carry question tomorrow. That timeline has sparked intensified outreach aimed at senators, with supporters pushing for a clear “yes” vote rather than delays, amendments that weaken the proposal, or procedural maneuvers that stall a final outcome.

    From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the argument is fundamentally about limiting bureaucratic control and preserving individual liberty. Proponents contend that campus policies and administrative rules should not override statewide protections for lawful carry, and they emphasize that self-defense is a personal responsibility that does not stop at the edge of a school’s property line.

    The coming Senate action is being treated as a test of whether elected officials will deliver on what advocates describe as a straightforward promise: protect the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry for self-defense, including on campus. With the vote expected tomorrow, supporters are pressing senators to align their decision with constitutional rights and consistent statewide standards.

  • Virginia Gun Control Bill Nears Final Form After Legislature Rejects Governor’s Key Change

    Virginia Gun Control Bill Nears Final Form After Legislature Rejects Governor’s Key Change

    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.