My Right To Carry

Second Amendment

NRA Foundation Dispute Revives Questions About Wayne LaPierre’s Possible Comeback

My Right To Carry News Team

June 7, 2026

Fresh friction inside the National Rifle Association surfaced this week after two separate reports highlighted a growing divide tied to the NRA Foundation. Together, the developments have renewed speculation that former Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre could try to re-enter the organization’s orbit.

The flashpoint is a widening internal disagreement that appears to involve how the NRA and its affiliated charitable arm are aligning—or failing to align—at a sensitive moment for the group. The coverage suggests the split is not simply procedural, but part of a larger struggle over direction, governance, and who ultimately holds influence.

Those tensions carry added weight because the dispute arrives alongside discussion of LaPierre’s potential return. LaPierre, who previously served as the NRA’s Executive Vice President, is described as disgraced, and the idea that he could regain a role—formal or informal—has become a central concern raised by the week’s reporting.

From a libertarian-leaning perspective, the episode underscores how internal power struggles can distract from what many members and supporters expect: disciplined stewardship, transparency, and focus on core mission work rather than factional battles. When leadership questions dominate headlines, they can pull attention away from advocacy priorities and member trust.

For now, the main takeaway from the week’s developments is that old divisions inside the NRA have not fully cooled, and the dispute involving the NRA Foundation is accelerating those unresolved conflicts. As the situation unfolds, supporters of the Second Amendment and civil-society watchdogs alike will be watching whether the organization moves toward reform and stability—or whether the conditions for a LaPierre comeback continue to take shape.
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 Applauds Senate Introduction of the FFL Protection Act (S. 4671)

My Right To Carry News Team

June 6, 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.
Wayne LaPierre’s Appeal Fails, Leaving $4 Million Restitution Bill as NRA Foundation Split Push Grows

My Right To Carry News Team

June 5, 2026

Wayne LaPierre, for decades the most recognizable leader of the National Rifle Association, will still be on the hook for millions of dollars after an appellate court declined to overturn an order requiring him to repay the organization. The ruling keeps in place a restitution obligation totaling about $4 million owed back to the NRA.

The appeal loss lands as the NRA continues to grapple with the consequences of the internal conflict that escalated during LaPierre’s tenure. Even with the court decision settled for now, the broader struggle inside the gun-rights organization has not cooled, and attention has shifted to disputes over money, control, and the direction of affiliated entities.

A major flashpoint is the NRA Foundation, a related arm of the organization that is now at the center of an effort to separate it from the NRA entirely. Allies connected to LaPierre are involved in the push, which would effectively attempt to move the foundation’s substantial resources out from under the NRA’s control.

That proposed separation has intensified the already bitter power struggle within the broader NRA ecosystem. Supporters of the split frame it as a structural change for the foundation, while critics view it as an attempt to wall off a large pool of assets at a time when the NRA is facing major financial and governance pressures.

For the NRA and its members, the situation combines two simultaneous fights: the legal aftermath of restitution tied to the former leader and a high-stakes internal contest over whether a key affiliated institution—and its fortune—will remain connected to the parent group. With the appeal resolved against LaPierre, the battle now increasingly centers on what happens next with the foundation and who ultimately controls the resources intended to support the organization’s mission.
Pennsylvania Gun Owners Urged to Oppose Harrisburg “Lock Up Your Safety” Storage Bill

My Right To Carry News Team

June 4, 2026

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

My Right To Carry News Team

May 31, 2026

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.
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.
Machine Guns Gain Momentum as GOP Grassroots Reject Establishment Republicans

My Right To Carry News Team

May 29, 2026

Supporters of the Second Amendment are pointing to a shifting legal and political landscape that they say is starting to favor individual firearms rights more broadly, including ongoing debates that touch even the most tightly regulated categories of weapons. In their view, the public conversation is moving away from automatic deference to federal restrictions and toward a harder look at whether those limits match the Constitution’s text and history.

That shift is unfolding alongside a growing frustration on the Right with Republican officeholders who campaign as conservatives and then govern like cautious managers of the status quo. Gun-rights activists and many grassroots voters argue that half-measures and procedural delays have kept meaningful reforms from advancing, even when Republicans have held influence in Congress or state governments.

At the center of the latest round of commentary is the idea that the political coalition backing gun rights is becoming less willing to tolerate what it sees as performative support. The argument is that voters are increasingly focused on results—court fights, legislative follow-through, and clear opposition to new gun-control proposals—rather than endorsements, press releases, or ambiguous talking points.

Within that same framing, the strict federal rules surrounding machine guns have become a symbolic marker in the broader dispute about how far firearm regulations should go. Advocates contend that if the Constitution protects commonly held arms, then lawmakers and courts should be prepared to revisit long-standing regulatory schemes instead of treating them as permanently settled simply because they have existed for decades.

The political takeaway being emphasized is that establishment-minded Republicans who hesitate to push aggressively on gun policy may face more pushback in primaries and internal party contests. Activists believe the energy is increasingly on the side of candidates who are willing to take clearer positions, challenge federal overreach, and treat the right to keep and bear arms as a core liberty issue rather than a bargaining chip.
DOJ’s Missing Gun Rights Restoration Path Leaves Law-Abiding Americans in Limbo

My Right To Carry News Team

May 29, 2026

The Department of Justice has produced a new development tied to the restoration of gun rights, but it is not the outcome many Second Amendment advocates have been anticipating. For activists focused on a clear, workable way for people to regain firearm rights after losing them under federal law, the latest signal from DOJ does not appear to deliver that long-awaited plan.

At the center of the frustration is the question of when, or whether, DOJ will put forward a functional rights-restoration mechanism that people can actually use. Supporters of gun rights have been watching for a concrete policy or procedure that would allow qualified individuals to have their rights recognized again. Instead, the update that exists does not match the type of forward movement many expected to see.

The situation matters because, in practice, “rights restoration” is not an abstract talking point—it affects real people who believe they should have a defined process to regain constitutionally protected liberties once they have satisfied legal penalties or otherwise become eligible. From a libertarian and conservative perspective, a system that removes a fundamental right should not be allowed to operate indefinitely without an accessible, predictable route to restoration.

The new information indicates DOJ activity in the area, yet it still leaves unanswered the basic question raised by gun-rights proponents: where is the actual restoration plan? Without a clear program, timelines, or public-facing standards, the promise of restoring rights can feel more like a concept than a functioning part of the justice system.

For those following the issue, the takeaway is that DOJ’s recent movement does not appear to provide the specific relief many advocates have demanded. Until the department puts a usable, transparent framework in place, the debate is likely to continue—especially among Americans who see the Second Amendment as a core civil liberty that should not be treated as permanently forfeited without a fair path back.
Virginia Prosecutors in Four Counties Say They Won’t Bring Charges Under New “Assault Weapons” Ban

My Right To Carry News Team

May 28, 2026

Several elected Commonwealth’s Attorneys in Virginia are publicly signaling they do not intend to pursue criminal cases under the state’s new “assault weapons” restrictions once the measures begin. Their announcements come ahead of the July 1, 2026 effective date for the legislation.

The prosecutors involved represent at least four counties: Spotsylvania, Powhatan, Pulaski, and Smyth. Each has stated that their offices will decline to prosecute alleged violations tied to the new ban, framing the decision as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a lack of awareness about what the new statutes will require.

The laws at the center of the dispute are SB 749 and HB 217. According to the prosecutors’ statements, they expect that when these laws take effect, charges submitted under those provisions will be rejected by their offices, meaning cases would not move forward in their jurisdictions based on those statutes alone.

In explaining their position, the prosecutors have pointed to what they describe as the superior authority of the Second Amendment. They argue that constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms outweigh the state’s new restrictions, and they cite that belief as a central reason for refusing to file or pursue prosecutions under the coming ban.

This emerging standoff sets up a significant conflict inside Virginia’s criminal-justice system, as enforcement of a statewide firearms policy may vary depending on local prosecutorial decisions. With the start date of July 1, 2026 approaching, the gap between state lawmakers’ intent and local prosecutors’ willingness to enforce the ban is becoming a major point of contention.