Second Amendment Commons^™

The Flaws Of Bruen And The Principle Of The Second Amendment, Cameron Collins

Catholic University Law Review

With a six Justice majority, the Court is more conservative than it has been in ninety years. No time has been wasted as the conservative Justices take aim at legal precedents left over from a more progressive era on the Court. There being no prior test established by the highest Court to review legal challenges on Second Amendment grounds, the Court took the opportunity to write new precedent in New York State Rifle Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Rather than stick with the means-end scrutiny framework that had been developing in the circuit courts, the Supreme Court established a …

Death & Taxes: Preserving The Second Amendment From "Absolute Obliteration" With Congress' Powers Of Taxation?, Christian Ketter

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Historical Firearm Licensing And Permitting Laws, Robert J. Spitzer

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

The Waiting Is The Hardest Part: The Constitutionality Of Firearm Waiting Periods, F. Lee Francis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article examines the constitutionality of firearm waiting period laws through the lens of the Supreme Court’s evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence. Although such laws are frequently defended as prudent public safety measures, their validity turns not on legislative purpose but on constitutional principle, particularly as framed in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

Under those decisions, the scope of the Second Amendment is determined not by judicial balancing of contemporary interests, but by reference to the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Article surveys that tradition and finds no …

Dangerous And Unusual: How Heller’S Ahistorical Assumption Violates The Founders’ Original Intent, Oliver Krawczyk, Gilbert Ambler

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

When the U.S. Supreme Court ended its generational silence on the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that “a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society” is “invalid.” In so holding, the Court suggested that the Constitution protects only those weapons “in common use at the time,” a limitation thought to be “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” The Court defined none of these terms then, and it has not since.

Over a decade of constitutional infidelity ensued. …

Constitutional Law—Arkansas’S Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions For The Formerly Mentally Ill, Michael Frost

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rahimi And The Future Of (The Rest Of) The Protection Order Prohibition, Bonnie Carlson

Articles

In the summer of 2024, the Supreme Court considered United States v. Rahimi. Scholars and lawyers watched with bated breath to see how the court would interpret and apply the foundation-shifting Second Amendment test it established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen two years earlier. Ultimately, the Court upheld the federal law which temporarily bans some protection order respondents from possessing firearms. But the Court provided little in the way of additional guidance that lower courts desperately needed as evidenced by the disparate outcomes on gun cases nationwide following Bruen. Rather, the Court opted for a …

Second Amendment: Incompatible Methodologies And The Bruen And Heller Opinions' Underlying Misalignment, Henry H. Robinson

Touro Law Review

In its 2022 Bruen opinion, the Supreme Court characterized the Heller opinion as having applied a “methodological approach” for interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, Bruen’s description and summary partially omitted, and was materially misaligned with, Heller’s actual reasoning. In Heller’s first step of constitutional interpretation, which addressed the first clause of the sentence comprising the Second Amendment, the opinion had selectively not applied the methodological approach described in Bruen; Heller’s first step had applied a different, incompatible methodological approach. Bruen’s description was aligned only with the second step of Heller’s constitutional reasoning, which had addressed the sentence’s second clause. …

What It Takes To Write Statutes That Hold The Firearms Industry Accountable To Civil Justice, Heidi Li Feldman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Essay defends statutes creating public nuisance and consumer protection causes of action against firearms industry actors for their failure to take reasonable measures to control the flow of their products to criminal users. Such laws are predicate statutes under PLCAA and do not infringe the Second Amendment.

The Historical Regulation Of Intoxicated Firearms Possession And Carry: A Response To F. Lee Francis’S Armed And Under The Influence: The Second Amendment And The Intoxicant Rule After Bruen, Mark Anthony Frassetto

Marquette Law Review

Recently, the Marquette Law Review published Armed and Under the Influence: The Second Amendment and the Intoxicant Rule After Bruen by Professor F. Lee Francis. In that article, Professor Francis provocatively argues that the Second Amendment protects the right of intoxicated people to carry guns in public. Francis argues that, under the history-focused framework for deciding Second Amendment cases laid out by the Supreme Court in Bruen, there is an insufficient historical tradition to support prohibiting intoxicated people from carrying arms in public. Francis is wrong about the historical tradition. The historical tradition of regulating the intersection of guns and …

“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 …

Firearm Contagion: A New Look At History, Rachel Martin, Michael R. Ulrich

Faculty Scholarship

Gun violence is widely considered a serious public health problem in the United States, but less understood is what this means, if anything, for evolving Second Amendment doctrine. In New York Pistol & Rifle Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that laws infringing Second Amendment rights can only be sustained if the government can point to sufficient historical analogues. Yet, what qualifies as sufficiently similar, a suitable number of jurisdictions, or the most important historical eras all remain unclear. Under Bruen, lower courts across the country have struck down gun laws at an alarming pace, while …

Are Handguns A Matter Of Privacy?, Bret N. Bogenschneider

St. Mary's Law Journal

The thesis developed in this Article is that the Heller and Bruen cases involved primarily right-to-privacy concerns. By its terms, the Second Amendment involves the collective right to bear Arms in connection to regulated militia service and does not mention handguns. Handguns were not “ordinary military weapons” employed by a militia at the time of the American revolution under the originalist view. The Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments are more appropriate sources for an individual privacy right related to the possession of handguns for private purposes, such as for self-defense or suicide. However, a prohibition of handguns under this approach would …

There Is No Bruen Step Zero: The Law-Abiding Citizen And The Second Amendment, Jeff Campbell

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 1 the Supreme Court transformed Second Amendment law by adopting an originalist approach in gun-rights cases. Breaking from its previous cases, the Court recognized an individual right to bear arms, at least within the home.2 The Court’s method, while not fully specified, focused on history to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment. 3 But despite the abrupt change in the law, the anticipated revolution never really came. Lower courts turned away nearly every challenge to existing gun laws, sometimes by declining to extend Heller outside the home,4 sometimes by finding that the laws …

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 …

The Contours Of Gun Industry Immunity: Separation Of Powers, Federalism, And The Second Amendment, Hillel Y. Levin, Timothy D. Lytton

Scholarly Works

In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), granting the firearms industry sweeping immunity from civil lawsuits. However, PLCAA immunity is not absolute. This Article demonstrates that both state and federal courts have fundamentally misread PLCAA when adjudicating cases involving the scope of gun industry immunity. Properly understood, PLCAA permits lawsuits against the gun industry so long as they are based on statutory causes of action rather than common law. While broadly preempting state common law claims, PLCAA affords state legislatures autonomy in deciding how to regulate the gun industry within their borders.

Additionally, this …

Firearms Regulation Through Constitutional Litigation, Hillel Y. Levin, Timothy D. Lytton

Scholarly Works

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen puts the Court firmly in charge of U.S. firearms policy. The decision also marks the beginning of a new era in which constitutional litigation will replace state and federal legislation as the primary means of resolving deep and enduring disagreements over how to regulate guns.

The Court’s Bruen decision contrasts with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruling Roe v. Wade, where it declared that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” The …