My Right To Carry

Second Amendment

Gun Owners of America Backs Byron Donalds in Florida Governor Race

My Right To Carry News Team

June 12, 2026

Gun Owners of America has announced its endorsement of Congressman Byron Donalds in the contest for Florida governor. The organization’s backing places Donalds among the candidates drawing early support from major Second Amendment advocates as Florida voters look ahead to the state’s next gubernatorial election.

The endorsement reflects GOA’s emphasis on protecting the right to keep and bear arms and resisting new restrictions on lawful gun ownership. From a conservative and libertarian standpoint, endorsements like this serve as a clear signal to voters who prioritize constitutional liberties and limited government involvement in personal choices, including self-defense.

Donalds, a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is the candidate GOA is aligning with in Florida’s governor race. GOA’s decision highlights the group’s view that the state’s leadership should remain committed to safeguarding firearm rights and maintaining a political environment where law-abiding citizens are not treated as suspects for exercising a constitutional freedom.

For gun-rights voters, the endorsement is also a reminder that gubernatorial elections have practical consequences. Florida’s governor can influence the direction of state policy, the selection of key officials, and the broader approach to public safety and individual rights—areas where Second Amendment groups frequently argue that enforcement should focus on violent criminals rather than new limits on responsible citizens.

As the campaign season develops, GOA’s endorsement adds to the growing list of markers that candidates will use to define their priorities for Florida’s future. Voters who view the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment as central issues are likely to weigh endorsements such as this when evaluating who they believe will best defend those principles in the governor’s office.
DOJ Civil Rights Probe Targets Philadelphia Gun Permit Revocations Over Vague Standards

My Right To Carry News Team

June 11, 2026

The U.S. Department of Justice has opened a wide-ranging civil rights investigation into the Philadelphia Police Department’s Gun Permit Unit. Federal officials will examine how the unit handles gun permit decisions and whether people are losing permits under standards that are too unclear to be applied fairly.

The inquiry is being led by the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s newly created Second Amendment Section. According to the stated focus of the probe, investigators will evaluate whether Philadelphia is relying on subjective factors—such as “character,” “reputation,” and “good cause”—in ways that can be used to justify almost any outcome.

A central concern is whether those criteria are being used to revoke permits from citizens who are otherwise law-abiding. The investigation specifically points to members of a local Black armed defense group as individuals who may have been affected by these practices.

At issue is not merely how Philadelphia exercises administrative discretion, but whether the city’s approach crosses constitutional lines by allowing vague standards to function as a tool for arbitrary enforcement. When basic rights can be curtailed based on open-ended judgments about reputation or character, the risk of unequal treatment and selective decision-making increases.

The DOJ’s review will now scrutinize the Philadelphia Police Department’s procedures and rationale for revocations within the Gun Permit Unit. The outcome of the investigation will determine whether federal civil rights action is warranted based on how these standards have been applied in Philadelphia.
Brady Sues DOJ and ATF to Revive Public “Name-and-Shame” Effort

My Right To Carry News Team

June 11, 2026

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.
Supreme Court Declines DOJ Request to Review Nonviolent Felon Gun Rights Case

My Right To Carry News Team

June 10, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to take up a Justice Department appeal involving gun ownership rights for people with nonviolent felony convictions. The decision leaves unresolved, for now, a major constitutional and policy question that has been developing in the lower courts.

At the center of the dispute is a federal statute that broadly prohibits felons from possessing firearms. In the case at issue, a lower court had ruled that the ban could not be applied in full in the circumstances before it, partially invalidating the restriction as it related to nonviolent felons. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to step in and review that outcome.

By turning down the appeal, the justices signaled they are not yet prepared to provide nationwide guidance on how the Second Amendment applies to individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies. The practical effect is that the lower court’s ruling remains in place, but only within the bounds of that case and the jurisdiction where it applies.

The refusal to hear the case also means the broader legal debate continues without a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. For gun-rights advocates, this ongoing uncertainty matters because it leaves constitutional questions to be decided circuit by circuit, with outcomes potentially varying across the country.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the court’s decision highlights the ongoing tension between one-size-fits-all federal prohibitions and the principle that rights should not be curtailed beyond what is necessary—especially when the underlying conviction did not involve violence. Until the Supreme Court addresses the issue directly, the contours of gun rights for nonviolent felons will remain largely shaped by lower-court litigation.
Gun Owners of America and Fuerza 2A Back James Uthmeier for Florida Attorney General

My Right To Carry News Team

June 10, 2026

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its Spanish-language outreach arm, Fuerza 2A, announced that they are endorsing James Uthmeier for Florida Attorney General. The groups framed their decision as support for a candidate they believe will defend the right to keep and bear arms in the state’s top law-enforcement legal office.

The endorsement centers on the role of the attorney general in shaping statewide legal policy and litigation choices that can affect gun owners. GOA and Fuerza 2A emphasized that Florida’s next attorney general will have the ability to influence how state laws are interpreted and defended, including in court actions where Second Amendment issues may be at stake.

In making their endorsement public, GOA and Fuerza 2A positioned Uthmeier as aligned with a pro-Second Amendment approach to public safety and individual liberties. They presented the backing as part of their broader effort to support officials who, in their view, will resist gun restrictions and prioritize constitutional protections.

The announcement also highlighted Fuerza 2A’s role in communicating Second Amendment advocacy to Spanish-speaking Floridians. By issuing the endorsement jointly, the organizations signaled that they intend to reach a wide cross-section of voters who care about gun rights and related legal battles in Florida.

GOA’s statement served as a call for supporters to pay attention to the attorney general contest and to view the office as a key checkpoint against expanding government power over lawful gun ownership. The groups’ endorsement of Uthmeier was presented as a concrete step in that strategy as Florida’s political cycle continues.
San Jacinto Homeowner Shoots and Kills Shotgun-Armed Intruder After Being Fired Upon, Sheriff Says

My Right To Carry News Team

June 9, 2026

A deadly confrontation unfolded late at night in San Jacinto, California, when a resident encountered an intruder inside his home and the encounter ended in a fatal shooting. Authorities say the incident took place in the 1300 block of Heron Way and is being examined by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office.

Investigators describe the case as a straightforward example of self-defense. According to the sheriff’s office, the homeowner was not initially inside his residence at the moment trouble began.

Officials say the resident was at a neighbor’s house when he became aware of screaming and the sound of gunfire coming from within his own home. The noises prompted him to return to his property to find out what was happening.

Once back at the residence, the homeowner confronted an intruder who was armed with a shotgun, authorities said. During that encounter, the suspect fired multiple shots at the resident.

The sheriff’s office reports that the resident responded with gunfire, striking the intruder. The intruder died from the injuries, and the investigation is proceeding with the incident characterized by officials as a clear-cut self-defense situation.
Georgia Groom Aaron White Has Charges Dropped in 2024 Wedding-Night Shooting of Bride’s Stepfather

My Right To Carry News Team

June 8, 2026

Prosecutors in Henry County, Georgia, have ended the criminal case against Aaron White, the groom who was accused of fatally shooting his bride’s stepfather on the night of their wedding in 2024. The murder and aggravated assault counts filed against White have been formally dismissed, bringing the prosecution to a close.

The man who died was identified as Jason Maughon, the bride’s stepfather. White’s legal defense centered on self-defense, and that claim became the key issue the state would have needed to overcome to continue pursuing a conviction.

The Henry County District Attorney’s office, which assumed control of the matter after allegations of forensic misconduct under the prior administration, reviewed the evidence and the posture of the case. After taking over, prosecutors concluded the available proof did not allow them to move forward on the charges under the required legal standards.

According to the prosecutors’ assessment, they could not negate White’s claim that he acted to protect himself. They also determined they could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that White was the primary aggressor in the confrontation, a finding that undercut the state’s ability to prove the criminal allegations in court.

With the dismissal now entered, White is no longer facing the murder and aggravated assault charges stemming from the wedding-night shooting. The decision underscores how, in a case involving a self-defense assertion, the government must meet a high burden of proof—and when that burden cannot be met, charges should not proceed.
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.
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.