My Right To Carry

state legislature

  • Illinois Gun Owners Urged to Oppose Proposed “Backdoor” Handgun Ban

    Illinois Gun Owners Urged to Oppose Proposed “Backdoor” Handgun Ban

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Illinois gun owners are being asked to act quickly in response to what advocates describe as an indirect attempt to restrict access to handguns. The alert focuses on a developing push in Springfield that, in their view, would function like a handgun ban without using that label.

    Supporters of the action warning argue that the approach relies on regulatory and legislative mechanisms that could effectively choke off lawful handgun ownership. They frame the issue as part of a broader pattern in Illinois politics: using administrative hurdles and indirect prohibitions rather than straightforward votes on a clear ban.

    The message to residents is not simply informational; it is a call to get directly involved. Readers are encouraged to contact state lawmakers and make their opposition known while the situation is still in motion, emphasizing that timing matters when bills or policy changes are moving through the process.

    From a conservative and libertarian standpoint, the concern is that policies like this shift power away from ordinary citizens and toward government gatekeepers, limiting constitutional rights through technical compliance traps. Critics argue that such measures punish peaceable gun owners while doing little to address violent criminals who ignore firearm laws.

    The central request is for Illinois residents to participate in the political process—communicating with elected officials and pushing back against any proposal that would reduce the practical ability to buy or own a handgun. The overall objective is to stop what the organizers characterize as a “backdoor” handgun ban before it becomes state policy.

  • Pennsylvania Lawmakers Pressed to Advance Constitutional Carry and Reinforce Statewide Firearms Preemption

    Pennsylvania Lawmakers Pressed to Advance Constitutional Carry and Reinforce Statewide Firearms Preemption

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Gun-rights advocates in Pennsylvania are urging state lawmakers to move quickly on a package of priorities they say would protect lawful gun owners from shifting local rules and political backlash. The focus is on advancing “constitutional carry,” tightening statewide preemption of local gun regulations, and blocking what supporters describe as retaliatory restrictions aimed at discouraging firearms ownership and carry.

    Supporters of constitutional carry argue that peaceable adults should not be required to obtain a government-issued permit to carry a firearm for self-defense. They contend that permitting systems can create unnecessary delays and costs for people who have done nothing wrong, while doing little to deter criminals who ignore the law. From this perspective, the aim is to treat the right to carry as a fundamental liberty rather than a privilege dependent on administrative approval.

    At the same time, advocates are calling for stronger enforcement of Pennsylvania’s preemption framework, which is intended to keep firearm rules consistent statewide rather than allowing a patchwork of local ordinances. They warn that when cities or municipalities attempt to set their own gun rules, lawful residents can be put at risk of inadvertently violating unfamiliar regulations while traveling, working, or visiting family across county and city lines. In their view, uniform statewide standards are essential to protect due process and prevent selective enforcement.

    The campaign also highlights opposition to what it characterizes as retaliatory gun control—new restrictions introduced in response to political pressure or as a punishment for pro-Second Amendment legislative efforts. Gun-rights supporters argue that such measures are often framed as public-safety initiatives but function in practice to burden compliant citizens, not violent offenders. They are asking legislators to stop any proposals they believe are designed to chill lawful ownership, purchase, or carry rather than target criminal misuse.

    Advocates are directing their attention to the General Assembly and pressing elected officials to prioritize these issues in upcoming legislative action. They emphasize the importance of moving bills forward, strengthening preemption protections, and ensuring that local governments cannot impose rules that conflict with state law. For supporters, the broader goal is to secure robust protections for the right to keep and bear arms throughout Pennsylvania and prevent local or political maneuvers from narrowing that right.

  • Pennsylvania SB 822 Advances, Moving a Stronger Firearm Preemption Bill to the Senate Floor

    Pennsylvania SB 822 Advances, Moving a Stronger Firearm Preemption Bill to the Senate Floor

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Pennsylvania lawmakers are moving SB 822 forward, setting the stage for a full vote on the Senate floor. The measure focuses on reinforcing the state’s firearm preemption framework, a policy area that determines whether local governments can create their own gun regulations apart from statewide law.

    The bill’s advancement signals that supporters believe it has reached a point where the entire Senate should weigh in. Rather than remaining in a preliminary stage, SB 822 has cleared the step needed to be formally considered by the full chamber, where senators can debate its provisions and decide whether it should pass.

    At the heart of SB 822 is the concept of preemption—keeping rules consistent across Pennsylvania instead of allowing a patchwork of local ordinances that can vary from one municipality to the next. From a limited-government perspective, supporters argue that uniform statewide standards reduce confusion for lawful residents and help prevent local officials from imposing restrictions that go beyond what state law allows.

    The legislation is being tracked closely by gun-rights advocates who view it as a direct response to local efforts to regulate firearms independently. In their view, stronger preemption is a way to ensure that elected officials at the local level cannot create penalties and compliance burdens that affect ordinary citizens differently depending on where they live or travel within the Commonwealth.

    With SB 822 now headed to the Senate floor, attention shifts to the coming floor debate and vote. The next steps will depend on the Senate’s decision on final passage, determining whether the proposal continues through the legislative process or stalls at this stage.

  • Where Virginia’s Gun Laws Stand Today (with Cam Edwards)

    Where Virginia’s Gun Laws Stand Today (with Cam Edwards)

    My Right To Carry News Team

    My Right To Carry News Team

    Virginia’s latest push to tighten gun policy has reached the point where the only move left is the governor’s. The General Assembly has wrapped up its work on the final gun-bill language, and now Gov. Abigail Spanberger is weighing whether to sign the measures as delivered or reject them with a veto.

    The immediate question is what to make of the legislature’s response to the governor’s requested edits. Lawmakers adopted seven of Spanberger’s recommended changes to the bills they passed. But they declined two of the changes she treated as the biggest priorities, including a major revision she sought for the “assault firearms” ban. Because those changes didn’t make it into the final versions, Spanberger is now staring at a straightforward decision: approve the original language that landed on her desk or stop the bills altogether.

    To track what happens next, I’ve been following the discussion with Virginia-based gun commentator Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms, who’s been watching the personalities and the politics as closely as the policy details. Edwards’ read is that friction between the governor’s office and legislative leadership likely helped shape the decision to dismiss her proposed edits. Even so, he doesn’t think irritation between the branches is enough to make a veto the most likely outcome for either bill.

    What’s not really in dispute is the scale of what’s being considered. Edwards agrees that the package, taken as a whole, ranks among the most far-reaching set of state-level gun restrictions enacted in at least a decade. That matters for more than just the legal text. In his view, the breadth of the proposals could weigh on Spanberger and fellow Democrats politically, potentially giving Republicans room to run stronger than expected in next year’s elections.

    At the same time, he cautions against assuming the fight ends with one signature or one veto. Edwards sees a plausible scenario where, regardless of how this round is resolved, lawmakers could return before the next election and pursue even stricter limits—essentially revisiting the issue with an even heavier hand.

    In the near term, Edwards expects the center of gravity to shift quickly from the Capitol to the courthouse. He believes much of the immediate action around these bills will be driven by litigation, as opponents look for ways to block or narrow the laws if they take effect. But he also points out that court challenges aren’t guaranteed victories for gun-rights groups, especially given the obstacles they can face in federal court.

    So the next steps are clear: with the legislature finished and the governor holding the pen, Virginia is in a short window where the outcome hinges on Spanberger’s final call—followed, quite possibly, by a new phase of political and legal conflict depending on what she decides.