My Right To Carry

litigation

  • GOA and GOF Ask Virginia Supreme Court to Weigh In Early on Potential “Assault Firearms” Ban

    GOA and GOF Ask Virginia Supreme Court to Weigh In Early on Potential “Assault Firearms” Ban

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    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.

  • Brady Sues DOJ and ATF to Revive Public “Name-and-Shame” Effort

    Brady Sues DOJ and ATF to Revive Public “Name-and-Shame” Effort

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Brady: United Against Gun Violence has taken legal action aimed at pressuring the federal government to restart a public-facing “name-and-shame” approach that it says should be supported by official agencies. The group’s lawsuit targets the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, after the organization lost what it viewed as federal backing for the campaign.

    At the center of the dispute is Brady’s effort to publicly spotlight certain federally licensed firearms businesses. According to the account of the case, Brady wants the DOJ and ATF to provide information in a way that would enable continued public call-outs of specific industry participants, even though the agencies are constrained by federal legal requirements governing what can and cannot be disclosed.

    The legal complaint, as described, seeks to compel the agencies to act in ways critics argue would conflict with federal law. Those critics maintain that the requested disclosures are not simply a policy choice, but an attempt to force government offices into releasing material that statutes restrict, raising concerns about whether the suit is effectively asking the agencies to disregard existing rules.

    Beyond the legal questions, opponents of the lawsuit argue that expanding disclosures could create practical risks for public safety. They contend that exposing certain law-enforcement-sensitive details or operationally relevant information could endanger officers and ongoing work, and that government should not be pushed into making releases that could be exploited or that could compromise safety.

    From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the lawsuit is seen as an effort to use government power to amplify political pressure rather than to improve public safety through lawful, transparent processes. Critics argue that policy fights should not be waged by trying to force federal agencies into legally questionable actions, especially when those actions could create unintended consequences for law enforcement and the public.

  • Non-Resident Carry Lawsuits Face a Tougher Road After Early Post-Bruen Wins

    Non-Resident Carry Lawsuits Face a Tougher Road After Early Post-Bruen Wins

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Gun-rights groups have enjoyed a strong run in court since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, particularly when challenging broad, across-the-board state restrictions that blocked non-residents from carrying firearms. Those early cases helped dismantle blanket state-level bans that treated out-of-state permit holders as categorically disqualified, and advocates largely moved from one win to the next.

    That momentum is now meeting a more complicated legal environment. Rather than dealing with straightforward prohibitions that were easier to target, the next wave of litigation is running into a new obstacle that makes expanding non-resident carry less predictable and more difficult than the fights that came immediately after Bruen.

    The practical reality is that as the clearest, most sweeping bans fall, what remains tends to be more layered and harder to challenge cleanly. When a state no longer enforces an outright rule against all non-residents, disputes often shift to narrower policies and administrative frameworks—areas where courts may be less willing to issue broad rulings and where outcomes can hinge on details.

    For supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, that means the post-Bruen “unbeaten streak” is unlikely to translate automatically to the next stage of the campaign. The legal strategy that worked against blanket bans does not always map neatly onto more incremental restrictions, even if the end goal—expanded ability for non-residents to lawfully carry—remains the same.

    The result is a tougher fight ahead for gun-rights advocates seeking broader recognition of carry rights beyond state lines. After a period defined by clear victories against sweeping state policies, the coming battles are set to be more contested, more technical, and less certain in court.

  • Virginia Enacts “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Limits, Shifting the Fight to the Courts

    Virginia Enacts “Assault Weapon” and Magazine Limits, Shifting the Fight to the Courts

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Virginia’s debate over restricting certain firearms and ammunition magazines has moved into a new phase. After a prolonged period of uncertainty, the proposals targeting so-called “assault weapons” and magazines are no longer merely pending ideas. They are now part of state law, closing out the immediate legislative contest.

    With enactment complete, the next arena is the judiciary. The push to reverse these new limits is expected to take shape through lawsuits aimed at invalidating the bans. In other words, the political process has produced an outcome, and opponents are now preparing to challenge that outcome through legal claims.

    From a conservative and libertarian standpoint, this transition matters because it changes what success looks like. Instead of persuading lawmakers or the governor, critics must now convince judges that the restrictions cannot stand under the relevant constitutional standards that govern firearms regulations.

    The road ahead will likely be defined by procedural choices as much as headline issues: who brings the case, where it is filed, and what immediate relief is requested. The initial legal actions will shape the pace and direction of the broader effort to roll back the newly enacted hardware and magazine rules.

    For supporters of robust Second Amendment protections, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: the policy fight has ended for now, but the contest over rights and limits is only beginning. The practical path forward runs through litigation intended to undo Virginia’s “assault weapon” and magazine bans now that they have become law.