Law Commons^™

A De-Regulated Militia: The Diminished Training Requirements For Ohio Teachers To Carry Weapons In Schools, Richard Sharp

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The History Of Bans On Types Of Arms Before 1900, David B. Kopel, Joseph G.S. Greenlee

Journal of Legislation

This Article describes the history of bans on particular types of arms in America, through 1899. It also describes arms bans in England until the time of American independence. Arms encompassed in this article include firearms, knives, swords, blunt weapons, and many others. While arms advanced considerably from medieval England through the nineteenth-century United States, bans on particular types of arms were rare.

Salvaging Federal Domestic Violence Gun Regulations In Bruen’S Wake, Bonnie Carlson

Washington Law Review

Congress passed two life-saving laws in the mid-1990s: a protection order prohibition, which bars firearm possession for protection order respondents, and the Lautenberg Amendment, which bars firearm possession for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Both laws have been repeatedly upheld by federal courts nationwide in the nearly thirty years since their enactment. Both faced renewed constitutional challenges after the United States Supreme Court’s foundation-shifting decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen on June 23, 2022. The Lautenberg Amendment has fared well; every court to consider it post-Bruen has upheld it. Courts have …

Second Amendment Immigration Exceptionalism, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Publications

This Essay critiques the decision to uphold federal gun restrictions on unlawfully present noncitizens on the basis of "immigration exceptionalism." It argues that courts should avoid applying bespoke constitutionalism to criminal laws, including gun laws, simply because the law regulates noncitizens. This Essay shows why such exceptional modes misapprehend long-decided Supreme Court cases and well-established legal doctrine. Further, it warns that an exceptional approach to Second Amendment claims by unlawfully present noncitizens cannot be cabined to either firearms or the unlawfully present. Rather, it portends a wider gulf in constitutional protections for all noncitizens across a variety of fundamental criminal …

Scientific Context, Suicide Prevention, And The Second Amendment After Bruen, Eric Ruben

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court declared in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that modern gun laws must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” to survive Second Amendment challenges. Scholarship has shown how this test of historical analogy presents difficulties because of how technological, legal, and social change has shaped policy over the centuries. This Article is the first to assess Bruen as it applies to suicide- prevention laws, and, in doing so, illuminates another form of change that complicates Bruen’s implementation: scientific progress.

As this Article shows, early generations of Americans fundamentally misunderstood mental …

Must Courts Recalibrate Tort Law Governing Firearms In Light Of The Second Amendment?, Lars Noah

University of Cincinnati Law Review

The rules governing the scope of liability in cases where firearms cause injuries—some well-established, others fairly novel—help to define the responsibilities of users, owners, and sellers of these popular but dangerous products. As the U.S. Supreme Court has recently expanded an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, some have wondered whether the Second Amendment might operate to limit the reach of these various tort doctrines. Sixty years ago, the Court started to constitutionalize various aspects of state common law, most famously using the First Amendment to limit defamation claims but in other respects as well. A comparable approach to …

Recalibrating Bruen: The Merits Of Historical Burden-Shifting In Second Amendment Cases, Kevin G. Schascheck Ii

Belmont Law Review

After Bruen, the prevailing assumption was that the Second Amendment framework shifted radically for all gun laws. Courts throughout the country have already invalidated key gun safety statutes while applying the new test. However, such holdings fail to grapple with the full weight of Second Amendment doctrines. A proper application of the doctrine in toto will result in no significant changes to the constitutionality of the vast majority of gun laws after Bruen.

This Article explains the underdeveloped interaction between two principal Second Amendment doctrines - presumptions of legal validity and historical analyses. That interaction, framed in its simplest terms, …

“What’S Brewin’ With Bruen?” Why, And How, We Must Permit Certain Felons To Possess Firearms, Samuel Roos

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In the summer of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, outlining a new test for the constitutionality of statutes regulating firearm possession. The result has been chaos. In less than a year, U.S.C. § 922(n) and § 922(g)(8), which criminalize possession by specific people involved in the criminal justice system, have been held unconstitutional. Challenges to other federal firearm regulations are flooding the courts.

Notably, § 922(g)(1), which criminalizes possession of a firearm by any person with a felony in their criminal history, has been vigorously challenged. Few courts have yet …

Upholding The Domestic Violence Firearm Prohibitors Under Bruen’S Second Amendment, Samantha L. Fawcett

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Federal law prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence protective order (§ 922(g)(8)) or convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors (§ 922(g)(9)) from possessing firearms. Before New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, these commonsense gun laws had generally been considered uncontroversial, both in terms of their broad popular support and their constitutionality under the Second Amendment. In Bruen, however, the Supreme Court held that when a regulation burdens a Second Amendment right, the regulation must be consistent with American historical tradition, meaning that the regulation must be analogous to a pattern of historical firearm regulation.

After …

The Spirit Of Gun Laws, Noah Levine

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The firearms debate in the United States often pits public health against freedom. This false dichotomy implies that gun laws, even wise ones, inherently erode individual liberty. Indeed, this appeal to liberty finds fertile ground in the United States, where many Americans intuitively reject any incursion on their freedom. Yet this one-sided conception of liberty is, at best, incomplete: while the government can certainly encroach on our freedom, so too can our fellow citizens.

A historically grounded conception of liberty in the United States includes the sense of security that fosters self-expression without fear of arbitrary constraint. That is, when …

You'll Grow Into It: How Federal And State Courts Have Erred In Excluding Persons Under Twenty-One From 'The People' Protected By The Second Amendment, Ryder Gaenz

FIU Law Review

After more than two centuries of jurisprudential stillness, the United States Supreme Court undertook the task of discerning the Second Amendment’s meaning in District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to self-defense. Since Heller, the lower courts have grappled with determining the scope of the Second Amendment. One question of scope—the subject of this piece—is at what age does a person come within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections? Some federal and state courts have suggested, and in some cases held, that persons under twenty-one do not enjoy Second Amendment rights. However, …

The Second Amendment's "People" Problem, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Publications

The Second Amendment has a “people” problem. In 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the scope of the Second Amendment, grounding it in an individualized right of self-protection. At the same time, Heller’s rhetoric limited “the people” of the Second Amendment to “law-abiding citizens.” In 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen doubled down on the Amendment’s self-defense rationales but, once again, framed the right as one possessed by “citizens.” In between and after the two Supreme Court cases, several lower federal courts, including eight federal courts of appeals, wrestled with the question whether the right …

Originalism-By-Analogy And Second Amendment Adjudication, Joseph Blocher, Eric Ruben

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of modern gun laws must be evaluated by direct analogy to history, unmediated by familiar doctrinal tests. Bruen’s novel approach to historical decision-making purported to constrain judicial discretion but instead enabled judicial subjectivity, obfuscation, and unpredictability. Those problems are painfully evident in courts’ faltering efforts to apply Bruen to laws regulating 3D-printed guns, assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, obliterated serial numbers, and the possession of guns on subways or by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. The Court’s recent grant of certiorari in United …

Dangerous And Unusual: How An Expanding National Firearms Act Will Spell Its Own Demise, Oliver Krawczyk

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is the strictest federal gun control law currently in effect. It criminalizes the mere possession and transfer of specifically enumerated categories of firearms deemed to be especially dangerous and unusual, such as machine guns and silencers. Commensurate with this viewpoint, the NFA imposes on violators harsh felony penalties, from lengthy prison sentences to six-figure fines. However, the NFA permits lawful civilian ownership of these firearms under a taxation and registration scheme administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In its 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the United …

Disgust And Guns: Conduct, Identity, And Second Amendment Animus, William D. Araiza

Northwestern University Law Review

In Second Amendment Animus, Professor Jacob Charles examines whether the burgeoning doctrine of unconstitutional animus should play any role in adjudicating Second Amendment claims. This Essay responds to Professor Charles’s important work. While it concludes that he is likely correct to reject animus as a grounding for Second Amendment claims, it points out areas where the analysis is more nuanced than he suggests. After considering Professor Charles’s analysis, the Essay examines the Second Amendment animus issue through the theoretical lens provided by Professor Martha Nussbaum’s work on disgust as a motivating factor for the types of exclusionary and subordinating …

Proper Cause For Concern: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association V. Bruen, Ali Rosenblatt

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Gun rights and gun control advocates alike are watching the Supreme Court, to see what happens in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In this pivotal Second Amendment case, the Court finds its first opportunity to substantially extend its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, and to define the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home. The Court can decide this case narrowly by limiting its decision to the statutes at issue, New York’s “proper cause” regime (the “New York law”). Alternatively, the Court can rule broadly and use …

Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Outside The Constitution, Jacob D. Charles

Michigan Law Review

In popular and professional discourse, debate about the right to keep and bear arms most often revolves around the Second Amendment. But that narrow reference ignores a vast and expansive nonconstitutional legal regime privileging guns and their owners. This collection of nonconstitutional gun rights confers broad powers and immunities on gun owners that go far beyond those required by the Constitution, like rights to bring guns on private property against an owner’s wishes and to carry a concealed firearm in public with no training or background check. This Article catalogues this set of expansive laws and critically assesses them. Unlike …

Second Amendment Equilibria, Darrell A.H. Miller

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Second Amendment Animus, Jacob D. Charles

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The State's Monopoly Of Force And The Right To Bear Arms, Robert Leider

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Of The Second Amendment In A Time Of Lawless Violence, Nelson Lund

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Two Rights Make A Wrong: Armed Assembly Under The First And Second Amendments, Michael C. Dorf

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Guns Threaten The Public Sphere: A New Account Of Public Safety Under Heller, Joseph Blocher, Reva B. Siegel

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Second Amendment In A Carceral State, Alice Ristroph

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Resilience Of Substantive Rights And The False Hope Of Procedural Rights: The Case Of The Second Amendment And The Seventh Amendment, Renée Lettow Lerner

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does Justice Have A Syntax?, Steven L. Winter

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Second-Class Rights And Second-Class Americans: Applying Carolene Products Footnote Four And The Court’S Enforcement Of Nationally Accepted Norms Against Local Outlier Jurisdictions In Second Amendment Enforcement Litigations, Mark W. Smith

Catholic University Law Review

In the years since deciding District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court has largely abandoned the role of protecting American gun owners despite the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has failed to use the jurisprudential tools at its disposal to ensure that the fundamental right to arms is protected as robustly as other enumerated constitutional rights. This failure is an acute one. And it is unjustifiable across a wide variety of jurisprudential methodologies, from originalism to the non-originalist approaches …

Guns And Their Place In The Us, Jacob Garibaldi

English Department: Research for Change - Wicked Problems in Our World

Creating this paper was a wicked problem due to how deep of an issue the gun debate is in the United States. In the discussion of guns, there is a side that wants to abolish them, a side that believes in the right of the second amendment, and a middle ground where we can have guns in society with added in legal measures. Surely enough, those that are in opposition to firearms are persuaded due to the acts of violence and crime committed with them. Then there are those that use them in a way of self-defense. Through this paper, …

Who Has The Right?: Analysis Of Second Amendment Challenges To 18 U.S.C. § 922(G)(4), Alexandra T. Cline

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note argues that courts should decide challenges to § 922(g)(4) solely under the first step of the test, based on the notion that individuals subject to § 922(g)(4) fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protection. Thus, under the two-part test, the law would not burden conduct protected by the Amendment, rendering step two unnecessary for at least the vast majority of § 922(g)(4) challenges. This Note provides three independent ways in which courts could deem § 922(g)(4) outside the purview of the Second Amendment, and each should be considered a permissible approach.

The first Part of this Note …

The Militia: A Definition And Litmus Test, Marcus Armstrong

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court, in its decision in Perpich v. Department of Defense, ruled that members of the National Guard are “troops” as that word is used in the Constitution. In doing so, the Court negated a long-standing, but obsolete, definition of the militia. However, this move away from an obsolete definition of the militia posed considerable difficulties that the Court was unable to rectify in its Perpich decision. In this Article, the author hopes to help rectify these difficulties by proposing four necessary characteristics that define the militia: first, the militia is a military force; second, the …