Law Commons^™

Qualified Immunity As Gun Control, Guha Krishnamurthi, Peter N. Salib

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen threw the political project of gun regulation into question. Before Bruen, states could enact new kinds of gun restrictions if they passed a relatively stringent means-ends test. That is, if laws meaningfully reduced danger, while not too heavily burdening the right to self-defense, they were allowed. After Bruen, only gun controls actually in force in the Founding Era, and their close analogues, are permissible. Many fewer regulations will now pass the constitutional test.

Here, we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power, after Bruen, for states …

Presumptively Awful: How The Federal Government Is Failing To Protect The Constitutional Rights Of Those Adjudicated As Mentally Ill, As Illustrated By The 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4) Circuit Split, Kaitlyn M. Rubcich

Pepperdine Law Review

The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits are split as to whether the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) federal firearms ban violates the Second Amendment rights of those who were once adjudicated as mentally ill but have since returned to good mental health. In Beers v. Attorney General, the Third Circuit applied its own unique framework and held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. Meanwhile, the Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department and deemed the statute unconstitutional, while in Mai v. United States, the Ninth Circuit also applied intermediate scrutiny but held that § 922(g)(4) is constitutional. …

Second Amendment Background Principles And Heller's Sensitive Places, Adam B. Sopko

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Judges and commentators have widely acknowledge that history enjoys a privileged status in Second Amendment cases, but its precise role is undertheorized and rarely controls case outcomes. In particular, courts have been unable to decide "sensitive places" cases-- challenges to location-based gun laws-- in a manner that adheres to Supreme Court precedent because existing Second Amendment doctrine lacks a test for sensitive places cases that uses history and tradition in a principled way. This Article proposes a solution to address that problem.

An untapped source of guidance is the Court's takings jurisprudence. Interpreting their respective constitutional provisions, Justice Scalia observed …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents and Special Thanks.

Carrying The Second Amendment Outside Of The Home: A Critique Of The Third Circuit's Decision In Drake V. Filko, Ryan Notarangelo

Catholic University Law Review

In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s inherent right to keep and bear arms for self-defense-most notably, inside the home. Post-Heller, the lower courts are split on the Second Amendment’s protections outside of the home. This Note addresses the Third Circuit’s opinion on that split. In Drake v. Filko, the Third Circuit addressed whether New Jersey’s concealed carry permit law, which requires an individual to demonstrate a “justifiable need” to carry a handgun outside of the home, violated the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs were …

The Right To Defensive Arms After District Of Columbia V. Heller, Michael P. O'Shea

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shot Down: The D.C. Circuit Disarms Gun Control Laws In Parker V. District Of Columbia, Allison L. Mollenhauer

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Emerson: The Second Amendment As An Individual Right--Time To Settle The Issue, Scott A. Henderson

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.