Second Amendment

NRA Cuts Legal Spending and Builds Assets in 2025, Even as Membership Dues Keep Falling

My Right To Carry News Team

May 15, 2026

The National Rifle Association reported a stronger financial position in 2025, showing higher assets and a noticeable reduction in overall spending. The organization’s latest numbers indicate it managed to slow its financial slide compared with recent years, even as one key revenue stream continued to weaken.

A major driver of the improved cost picture was a sharp pullback in legal outlays. After years in which courtroom fights and related expenses weighed heavily on the NRA’s budget, 2025 reflected a year in which those legal costs were substantially reduced, helping the group bring total expenses down.

At the same time, the organization’s asset base increased during the year. That growth, paired with the spending cuts, suggests the NRA was able to stabilize operations and shore up its balance sheet, at least in the near term, despite operating in a challenging political and regulatory environment.

However, the numbers also show continuing softness in the group’s membership-driven income. Revenue from member dues declined again in 2025, indicating that the NRA’s ability to rely on grassroots financial support is still under pressure, even though the overall financial picture improved.

From a pro-Second Amendment and limited-government perspective, the report highlights the practical reality that major advocacy groups can be forced to divert significant resources into legal defense when targeted by political opponents or regulators. While the NRA’s reduced legal spending and higher assets mark a step toward financial steadiness in 2025, the continued drop in dues revenue shows the organization still faces the longer-term task of rebuilding and retaining its membership support.
Axelrod Interview Highlights AOC Comment Pointing to Criminal Misuse Over Lawful Gun Ownership

My Right To Carry News Team

May 14, 2026

David Axelrod, a senior fellow at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and a longtime strategist associated with former President Barack Obama, recently held an extended conversation with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. The discussion lasted about an hour and a half and touched on public policy issues, including the country’s ongoing debate over firearms and violence.

Ocasio-Cortez is widely known as a supporter of stricter gun regulations. In the course of the interview, however, she made an observation that aligns with a longstanding argument from gun-rights advocates: that lawful gun owners are not the driving force behind violent crime, and that the focus should remain on those who choose to break the law.

From a conservative and libertarian viewpoint, that distinction matters because it separates peaceful, legal conduct from criminal behavior. Treating firearm ownership itself as the central problem can shift attention away from accountability for offenders and away from policies aimed at preventing repeat crimes, targeting illegal possession, and enforcing existing laws against violent actors.

The exchange also underscores a basic point often missed in national discussions: millions of Americans own firearms without harming anyone, while a smaller number of individuals commit acts of violence. When policymakers frame solutions around broad restrictions on ordinary citizens, they risk burdening people who are already compliant with the law while leaving core drivers of violence—criminal intent and criminal actions—insufficiently addressed.

The interview, notable for its length and for Axelrod’s prominence in Democratic political circles, offered a moment where common ground briefly appeared in a polarized policy area. Even without changing her broader views, Ocasio-Cortez’s remark in that setting served as a reminder that the central issue in violent crime is the perpetrator—and that effective responses should prioritize public safety strategies that target criminals rather than sweeping limitations on lawful ownership.
Florida AG Sues Jacksonville, Seeks $5 Million Over Alleged Firearm Check-In Records

My Right To Carry News Team

May 14, 2026

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has taken legal action against the city of Jacksonville, accusing city officials of keeping records that functioned as an unlawful gun registry. The lawsuit asks for a $5 million penalty and centers on how firearms were reportedly documented when brought into municipal buildings.

According to the complaint, Jacksonville maintained logs tracking guns checked in at city facilities from July 2023 through early 2025. The state contends those records crossed a legal line by creating a list of firearms tied to people entering government property, something Florida law prohibits.

The case also revisits a prior enforcement decision. While an investigation by the State Attorney’s Office found the registry-style logging violated state law, the city previously avoided criminal consequences despite that finding.

Uthmeier’s filing escalates the dispute from investigation and internal review into a direct court fight between the state and one of Florida’s largest cities. From a limited-government perspective, the lawsuit reflects a broader concern that local agencies can quietly expand surveillance-like recordkeeping beyond what voters and state law allow.

The legal challenge now puts Jacksonville’s practices during the July 2023 to early 2025 period under formal scrutiny, with the state seeking financial penalties and a court ruling on the city’s compliance. The outcome could influence how other Florida municipalities handle firearm check-in procedures at public buildings without creating prohibited registries.
Virginia Surges to No. 2 in U.S. Rifle Purchases as Possible AR-15 Sales Ban Nears

My Right To Carry News Team

May 13, 2026

Virginia has climbed to the second-highest spot nationally for rifle purchases as residents move quickly to buy firearms and standard-capacity magazines amid uncertainty over a potential state crackdown. The shift comes as lawmakers advance restrictions that could soon limit what can be sold, prompting many buyers to act before any new rules take effect.

The immediate driver is pending legislation that would prohibit the sale of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15-style firearms, along with the ammunition magazines typically sold with them. Rather than waiting for the governor’s decision, Virginians have been heading to gun shops now, treating the current window as possibly their last chance to purchase the affected items through normal retail channels.

This rush has reordered where Virginia sits compared with other states, pushing it near the top of the national rankings for rifle sales. The jump reflects a familiar pattern seen in other jurisdictions: when a ban is proposed or close to being signed, demand accelerates as citizens try to secure lawful products before the market changes.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the situation underscores how regulatory threats can distort consumer behavior and burden ordinary people who want to exercise a fundamental right without being forced into a last-minute scramble. It also highlights the practical reality that bans often push otherwise routine purchases into a time-sensitive decision driven by politics rather than personal readiness or long-term planning.

For now, the outcome hinges on whether the governor signs the measure. Until that decision is made, Virginia’s gun retailers and buyers are operating in a climate shaped by the possibility that sales of popular semi-automatic firearms and their standard magazines could soon be off-limits in the state.
Pennsylvania Senate Moves Constitutional Carry Bill Forward, Passes Measure to Enforce State Preemption

My Right To Carry News Team

May 13, 2026

Pennsylvania lawmakers took two notable steps on firearm policy in Harrisburg on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, advancing separate proposals that supporters say reinforce statewide protections for the right to keep and bear arms and curb local overreach.

One action centered on Senate Bill 357, commonly described as “constitutional carry.” The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send SB 357 onward, moving it out of committee and positioning it for consideration by the full Senate.

If enacted, constitutional carry legislation is generally aimed at allowing eligible, law-abiding adults to carry a firearm without first obtaining a permit, reflecting the view that the right to self-defense should not hinge on navigating government licensing systems. The committee vote means the measure cleared a key procedural hurdle, but it still must be taken up by the Senate as a whole.

The second development occurred on the Senate floor, where the full chamber approved Senate Bill 822. That bill is designed to strengthen enforcement of Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption framework, which is intended to keep gun laws uniform statewide rather than varying from one municipality to the next.

SB 822 focuses on consequences for local governments that act contrary to state preemption rules. Supporters argue that when cities or counties attempt to set their own firearms regulations, it creates a confusing patchwork that undermines legal clarity for ordinary residents and invites selective enforcement. The Senate’s approval of SB 822 signals a commitment to ensuring local officials face penalties when they disregard state law.

Taken together, the movement of SB 357 out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate’s passage of SB 822 marked a significant day for Second Amendment policy in Pennsylvania, with one bill advancing toward a full Senate debate and the other clearing the chamber as a preemption-enforcement measure.
Delaware SB 304 Would Let Private Schools Arm Trained Staff Under “Safe Schools Sentry Act”

My Right To Carry News Team

May 12, 2026

Delaware lawmakers are considering a proposal that would give private schools a new option for campus protection by allowing certain employees to carry firearms at school, provided they are trained and authorized by the institution.

The measure was introduced by State Senator Eric Buckson. It is filed as Senate Bill 304 and is titled the “Safe Schools Sentry Act.” Under the bill, a private school could choose to permit designated staff members to be armed while on campus, rather than relying solely on outside security arrangements.

Supporters frame the concept as a practical response to the reality that threats can emerge quickly and that immediate on-site protection may matter in a crisis. From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the approach emphasizes local control—letting private institutions decide how best to safeguard their students and staff instead of forcing a one-size-fits-all security model.

A central argument behind SB 304 is cost. The bill is presented as a more budget-friendly alternative for smaller private schools that may not be able to afford full-time school resource officers (SROs), while still aiming to strengthen security through trained personnel already employed by the school.

As of May 6, 2026, SB 304 was assigned to the Delaware Senate Judiciary Committee, where it will be reviewed as part of the legislative process. The bill’s progress through the committee will determine whether it advances for further consideration in the Senate.
Public Comment Urged as ATF Faces Accusations of Building an Unlawful Gun Registry

My Right To Carry News Team

May 11, 2026

A new call is circulating among gun-rights advocates urging Americans to weigh in during a public-comment period over allegations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is effectively constructing a firearms registry outside the limits set by federal law. Supporters of the effort argue that a centralized record of lawful gun ownership would be incompatible with privacy, due process, and the constitutional boundaries placed on executive agencies.

The push centers on encouraging individuals to submit comments aimed at stopping what critics describe as an “illegal registry.” In this view, the issue is not merely administrative recordkeeping, but the long-term consequences of government aggregation of sensitive personal data tied to lawful conduct. Advocates emphasize that even if records begin as routine paperwork, large-scale collection can become a de facto registry when data is preserved, organized, and made searchable.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, the dispute reflects a broader concern about federal agencies expanding their reach through regulation and internal procedures rather than through clear authorization from Congress. Critics argue that policy choices with major implications for civil liberties should be made through the legislative process, not through administrative actions that are difficult for ordinary citizens to track and challenge.

Those promoting public participation say comments are a practical way for citizens to register opposition, create an official record of objections, and signal that voters are paying attention. They also argue that sustained public scrutiny can limit agency overreach by increasing political and legal accountability, especially when the subject involves constitutionally protected rights.

The organizing effort is being publicized by Gun Owners of America, which is directing readers to its post on the issue, titled “Comment Now To Stop the ATF’s Illegal Registry!” The group is using the moment to encourage immediate civic engagement and to frame the controversy as a timely decision point for anyone concerned about the growth of federal power and the protection of Second Amendment rights.
DOJ’s Colorado Gun Lawsuits Face a Tight Political Timeline

My Right To Carry News Team

May 10, 2026

The Justice Department’s latest move in Colorado has energized gun-rights supporters who want courts to strike down bans on AR-15-style rifles and limits on magazine capacity across the country. From a libertarian and conservative perspective, the development is notable not only for what it signals about federal enforcement priorities, but also for how quickly the window for meaningful progress could close.

At the center of the moment is timing. The Trump Administration’s action is being read by advocates as a fresh tailwind for challenges to restrictions that have become common in blue states. Still, even a favorable legal posture can be undermined if key decisions don’t arrive soon enough to matter, especially when political control and administrative direction can shift on an election cycle.

Colorado is now a focal point because the federal government has chosen to press its position through lawsuits in that state. Supporters of the effort see this as a chance to bring added legal pressure against policies they view as unconstitutional burdens on lawful ownership and self-defense. But the pace of litigation is rarely predictable, and that reality creates risk for any strategy dependent on fast-moving court schedules.

The broader stakes reach beyond Colorado. If bans on AR-15s and magazine limits can be defeated in court, the outcomes could influence similar laws elsewhere by shaping precedent and offering a roadmap for future challenges. Gun-rights groups have long argued that commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines should not be treated as exceptional or prohibited items, and they’re watching closely for signals that courts may be willing to take that position.

Even so, the underlying question is whether the Justice Department’s effort can clear major procedural hurdles before the political calendar reshuffles the incentives and priorities in Washington. A change in administration can alter litigation strategy, settlement posture, and the intensity with which the federal government pursues a case. That uncertainty is why observers describe the situation as a race: the legal arguments may be strong, but the clock can be just as decisive.
ATF Pushes New “Streamlined” Gun Purchase Process, Raising Privacy and Due-Process Concerns

My Right To Carry News Team

May 9, 2026

A federal effort now underway could reshape how many Americans complete a firearm purchase, with changes likely to be noticeable at the gun counter. The initiative centers on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and its push to make the buying process faster and more uniform.

The ATF’s approach is being framed as a modernization and efficiency move—an attempt to reduce friction in the steps between selecting a firearm and finalizing a lawful transfer. Supporters of streamlining often argue that customers and dealers alike benefit when paperwork and delays are reduced.

From a conservative and libertarian perspective, however, “streamlining” from Washington frequently comes with tradeoffs that deserve close scrutiny. When federal agencies redesign systems that touch constitutional rights, the details matter: how information is collected, how long it is retained, who can access it, and what new compliance burdens are quietly placed on lawful gun owners and small businesses.

Another concern is that procedural changes can function like policy changes, even when Congress never votes on them. A shift in how purchases are processed can influence how easily people can exercise a fundamental right, and it can also expand the practical reach of federal oversight without transparent debate.

The article from The Reload describes the effort as one that could alter the purchasing experience for most Americans in significant, visible ways. As this develops, gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are likely to watch whether the promised efficiency is achieved without building new back-end infrastructure that can be repurposed later for broader monitoring or restrictions.

At minimum, any federal attempt to redesign the buying process should be judged by clear standards: protecting due process, preventing the creation of de facto registries, minimizing unnecessary data collection, and ensuring that lawful commerce is not choked by shifting administrative rules. If the ATF proceeds, the agency should be pressed to explain exactly what will change, why it is necessary, and how it will be constrained to avoid undermining the rights of ordinary Americans.
ATF Rule Changes and the Practical Impact on Gun Owners and FFLs

My Right To Carry News Team

May 8, 2026

Federal firearms regulation is entering another adjustment period as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rolls out updated rules aimed at reshaping how oversight works for both Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and everyday gun owners. The stated purpose is to increase openness and strengthen accountability in how the agency regulates the firearms marketplace. For many Americans who value limited government, the bigger question is whether these changes will function as genuine reform or simply expand bureaucracy under a new label.

These rule updates focus heavily on the relationship between the ATF and license holders. FFLs sit at the center of lawful firearm commerce, and any regulatory shift tends to affect the entire system—from how transactions are handled to how compliance expectations are communicated and enforced. By presenting the changes as a move toward transparency, the agency signals that it intends to clarify standards and make oversight more consistent. Whether that clarity reduces uncertainty for businesses or creates additional administrative burdens will depend on how the rules are implemented in practice.

Gun owners are also affected because the rules that govern licensees can ripple outward into the purchasing process, transfers, and the broader availability of lawful services. When policy changes alter how dealers operate, customers often experience the results through new procedures, longer timelines, or shifts in what businesses are willing to do to avoid compliance risks. Supporters of individual liberty typically want a system that targets actual criminal behavior while keeping lawful ownership and commerce straightforward and predictable.

The reform framing suggests the ATF is attempting to address criticism about uneven enforcement and opaque decision-making. For conservatives and libertarians, accountability is not just a slogan—it should mean clear, stable rules that do not change depending on region, administration priorities, or internal interpretations that the public cannot easily evaluate. Transparency, in this sense, should include understandable guidance, consistent expectations, and a fair process that respects due process for licensees who are trying to comply in good faith.

As these new rules take hold, FFLs and gun owners alike will be watching for the real-world effects: whether compliance becomes more manageable and predictable, or whether the regulatory footprint grows in ways that discourage lawful commerce. The outcome matters not only to businesses and customers, but also to the broader principle that constitutional rights should not be constrained by shifting administrative policy. The practical test will be whether the ATF’s promised transparency and accountability translate into measurable restraint and clarity rather than expanded red tape.