My Right To Carry

NSSF

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.
NSSF Applauds Senate Introduction of the FFL Protection Act (S. 4671)

My Right To Carry News Team

June 7, 2026

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) welcomed the introduction of new legislation in the U.S. Senate aimed at protecting federally licensed firearms dealers. The organization said the proposal reflects a bipartisan effort and highlighted what it views as an important step for lawful commerce in the firearms industry.

The bill is titled the FFL Protection Act and carries the designation S. 4671. According to NSSF, the measure was introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and it has bipartisan backing.

NSSF framed its support around the role that Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) play in the legal sale and transfer of firearms. From the organization’s perspective, clear and consistent rules are essential so that licensees who follow the law are not put at risk by shifting enforcement approaches.

The announcement emphasized that the legislation is now before the Senate as S. 4671. NSSF’s response focused on the act’s intended effect of safeguarding FFLs, which it described as a central part of maintaining a lawful and orderly marketplace.

By praising the bill’s introduction, NSSF underscored its interest in seeing Congress address concerns tied to the federal licensing system. The group’s statement positioned the measure as a policy development it believes would support compliant firearms retailers and the broader legal framework they operate within.
NSSF Plans Legal Fight Over Connecticut Ban on Striker-Fired Handgun Sales

My Right To Carry News Team

May 30, 2026

Connecticut has enacted a new restriction on handgun sales after Gov. Ned Lamont signed a measure that blocks the sale of many striker-fired pistols within the state. The change targets a type of handgun that is widely owned and commonly sold through lawful channels.

NSSF, which describes itself as the firearm industry’s trade association, says it intends to pursue a legal challenge to the Connecticut prohibition. The organization announced its plans from Washington, D.C., framing the issue as a direct dispute over whether the state can bar a broadly used category of firearms.

At the center of the conflict is the scope of the ban: NSSF argues the law goes beyond regulating misuse and instead eliminates access to an entire class of handguns that are legally manufactured and commonly chosen by ordinary buyers. From a limited-government perspective, that kind of blanket policy treats responsible residents the same as criminals, even though the measure applies to people who are attempting to purchase firearms through legal, regulated sales.

NSSF also contends that the new statute violates the Second Amendment rights of Connecticut residents who follow the law. In its view, the state’s action represents an unconstitutional infringement by preventing citizens from purchasing certain handguns solely because of their design category, rather than because of any unlawful conduct.

The group’s planned court fight is aimed at overturning the sales ban and restoring legal access to these striker-fired handguns in Connecticut. For supporters of individual liberty, the case is expected to test whether state officials can prohibit a popular, lawfully produced type of firearm in a way that restricts lawful ownership for everyone.
Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Gary’s Bid to Revive 26-Year Lawsuit Against Gun Makers, NSSF Says

My Right To Carry News Team

May 23, 2026

The Indiana Supreme Court has declined to take up a request from the City of Gary that would have shifted jurisdiction and prolonged a lawsuit the city has pursued for more than two decades. The action effectively blocks an attempt to keep a 26-year-old case moving forward against firearm manufacturers.

NSSF, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, responded from Washington, D.C., praising the court’s decision. The trade association said the ruling reflects adherence to the rule of law and prevents continued litigation aimed at expanding liability beyond those who commit crimes.

At the center of the dispute is Gary’s long-running effort to hold gun manufacturers responsible for criminal misuse of firearms by third parties. The case sought to place legal blame on companies for acts carried out by individuals, rather than on the perpetrators themselves.

According to NSSF, Gary filed a petition to transfer jurisdiction in an effort to extend the litigation. The Indiana Supreme Court denied that petition, cutting off a pathway the city was using to keep the lawsuit alive.

NSSF characterized the suit as frivolous and argued that allowing it to continue would encourage politically driven litigation designed to punish lawful commerce through the courts. The group framed the court’s decision as an important check on “lawfare” tactics that, in its view, attempt to achieve policy outcomes by targeting manufacturers instead of addressing criminal behavior directly.
NSSF Backs Lawsuit Challenging Virginia’s HB 217 and SB 749 Firearm Ban

My Right To Carry News Team

May 15, 2026

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.
Fix Our Forests Act Moves Forward in Congress to Tackle Wildfire Risk and Restore Habitat

My Right To Carry News Team

May 9, 2026

A major federal effort to address worsening conditions in America’s forests is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers advance bipartisan legislation aimed at improving forest health. Supporters say the problem has been building for years and has been repeatedly highlighted by people who live and work closest to the land, including hunters, conservation advocates, rural residents, and forest managers.

Earlier this session, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 471, known as the Fix Our Forests Act. The measure is a stated priority of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which has been urging action to confront what it describes as a forest health crisis affecting habitat and increasing wildfire danger.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Backers emphasize that Westerman’s role as committee chair places him at the center of congressional work on public lands and forest policy, and they argue that his leadership reflects an on-the-ground understanding of the challenges that have been accumulating across many forested regions.

Proponents frame the legislation as a practical response focused on restoring habitat while also lowering the likelihood and severity of catastrophic wildfires. The argument behind the push is that delaying action has real consequences for communities near forested areas and for those who rely on healthy habitat for wildlife and outdoor recreation.

From a limited-government perspective, supporters also point to the value of timely, targeted management decisions that reduce risks before disasters occur, rather than relying on costly emergency responses after fires break out. With House passage completed, advocates are pressing for continued progress as Congress considers next steps for the Fix Our Forests Act.
OCC Opens Formal Complaint Route for Firearm Businesses Dropped by Banks

My Right To Carry News Team

May 2, 2026

Firearm-related companies that lose banking services for reasons they believe are political now have a more direct way to make their case to federal regulators. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is outlining a clearer process for bank customers to document debanking and ensure those concerns become part of the official regulatory record.

The change matters because many businesses depend on stable access to basic financial services to operate—payroll, vendor payments, and routine transactions. When accounts are closed or services are denied, affected customers often struggle to identify the real reason or to find a meaningful forum where their complaints will be tracked and reviewed.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the OCC’s step is intended to help customers—including members of the firearm industry—submit evidence and details in a structured way that regulators can formally consider. The approach is meant to create a paper trail that does not rely solely on informal conversations with a bank and can be referenced during oversight and supervision.

NSSF also framed the update as part of carrying out President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14331, titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans.” In that context, the new pathway is presented as a practical mechanism for pushing back on what critics describe as politicized account closures and denials of service.

From a limited-government, pro-market perspective, the significance is straightforward: banks should compete for customers based on lawful commerce and risk, not pressure campaigns or ideological litmus tests. By making it easier for affected customers to place debanking allegations into the regulatory record, the OCC is providing a more tangible route to accountability when lawful businesses believe they are being targeted.