Second Amendment Commons^™

Green Dividends: A Case Study In Green Dividends And The Conditions For Private Ordering Solutions, Anne M. Tucker

Seattle University Law Review

This Essay introduces a novel private ordering solution to facilitate corporate investments in pro-social and environmental initiatives: Green dividends. Green dividends are an optional increase in shareholder dividends that are returned to the company to be reinvested in environmental initiatives or kept by a shareholder.

Green dividends pose an alternative to the current gridlocked debate that corporations can’t, won’t, shouldn’t, and shouldn’t even try to act in pro-social or environmental ways. Turning the common refrains on their head converts each narrative into an element for a successful private ordering solution: authority, accountability, shareholder buy-in, and government- backed enforcement. With Green …

Does Climate Disclosure Work To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Emerging Evidence Suggests Cautious Optimism, Cynthia A. Williams

Seattle University Law Review

Significant regulatory resources have been spent developing global, voluntary climate and sustainability disclosure standards, such as the TCFD, TNRD, and ISSB’s Sustainability and Climate Disclosure standards, or domestically required disclosures, such as in the EU and in the U.S. Thus, it is important to evaluate whether this disclosure, particularly voluntary, qualitative disclosure, will have the power to shift the allocation of capital, will have a significant effect on the management of climate risk within firms, and ultimately will reduce climate change risk and biodiversity loss.

In this Article, several interrelated questions will be discussed. First, what does the empirical evidence …

Lewd, Rude, Obscene, And… Violent? Analyzing Student Clothing Depicting Firearms Under The First Amendment’S Obscenity Test, Luke Gorman

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Today’s national news and social media have repeatedly exposed our school-age children to the effects of shootings occurring within their schools and communities. Each shooting brings with it commentary, sometimes from the students themselves. While in-school student speech is more limited than speech levied in the outside world, students do not shed their speech rights at the “schoolhouse gate.” As a result, courts have failed to outline a consistent approach for when a student will be punished for wearing a shirt depicting a firearm to school. This Comment addresses this delicate balance by proposing a consistent three-part test framed by …

Bruen: The Court's Announcement Of The Historical Analogy Test And The Aftermath Thereof, Michael Partrick

Wyoming Law Review

The United States Supreme Court’s history of analyzing firearms restrictions has seemingly always led to ambiguities and confusion in lower courts. This was especially true after 2008, when the Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In the years following Heller, lower courts across the country applied different standards to determine the constitutionality of firearms restrictions. The Court granted certiorari in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) to establish the proper test for determining whether a firearm regulation is constitutional. This test is based on U.S. …

State V. Ortiz, 317 A.3d 737 (R.I. 2024), Samantha Barnes

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Editor's Notes On Special Issue: The National Firearms Act

Wyoming Law Review

No abstract provided.

Take It Or Leavitt: The Criminal Consequences Of Doing The Right Thing, Eva Lynch

University of San Francisco Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dangerousness And The Undocumented, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Publications

The Supreme Court's most recent Second Amendment opinion, United States v. Rahimi, centers the question of dangerousness in right to bear arms challenges. There, the Court upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the federal criminal prohibition on possession of firearms by those subject to a civil domestic violence order, opining that legislatures could regulate the right to bear arms of those who were proven credible threats to public safety. Rahimi, however, left open the question whether dangerousness might be imputed to an entire group, absent individual determinations of threat or danger. The several lower federal court cases adjudicating 18 U.S.C. § …

Survival Of The Social Interest: Redefining The Bruen Standard To Protect Women From Violence Through United States V. Rahimi, Katelyn M. Sundstrom

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Note explores the intersection of gun rights and gender-based violence within the U.S. legal system. It delves into the pervasive issue of domestic violence and explores the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which rejected the use of “interest balancing” in evaluating gun regulations in favor of a purely historical and traditional approach. This shift placed significant legal scrutiny on existing firearm restrictions, including 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

The analysis centers on the 2023 case United States v. Rahimi, …

Why Domestic Violence Offenders Don't Give Up Their Guns, Natalie Nanasi

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence are barred by federal law and many states' laws from possessing firearms. While such prohibitions enjoy popular support, they are sporadically and inconsistently enforced, placing the lives of survivors at risk when offenders do not voluntarily comply. Many experts, including this author, have offered legal and policy solutions to increase the likelihood that perpetrators of domestic violence will either willingly relinquish their guns or otherwise be dispossessed of them. But these proposals may have been premature.

This Article is the first to take a step back and inquire why offenders do not surrender their firearms …

Teaching Firearms Law: One Big Opportunity And Three Pedagogical Challenges, Joseph Blocher, Jacob D. Charles, Darrell A.H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court’s groundbreaking 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller ushered in a new era for the Second Amendment: one in which the right to keep and bear arms, long dormant as a matter of practical impact and even “embarrassing” as a matter of legal scholarship, vaulted into the front ranks of constitutional law. The Court itself has only revisited the Amendment a few times since then—albeit once by revolutionizing the doctrine. Meanwhile, lower courts have issued thousands of decisions giving shape to the right, while scholars have generated work that is increasingly deep, diverse, and challenging. …

Technologies Of Violence: Law, Markets, And Innovation For Gun Safety, Joseph Blocher, Christopher Buccafusco

Faculty Scholarship

Violence in the United States is distinctive in many ways, perhaps none more visceral and fundamental than the technologies with which it is practiced. American violence disproportionately involves guns, and because guns are such an effective tool of violence, confrontations involving them are disproportionately deadly. Decades of research confirm this "instrumentality effect, " and it is reflected in the broad, bipartisan agreement that the nation has a gun violence problem. The deep disagreement, of course, remains about how to address it, with most of the debate focused on regulating who can carry which guns, where, and how.

But fully understanding, …

History And Tradition As Heightened Scrutiny, Andrew Willinger

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court is turning to methodologies privileging text, history, and tradition, or THT, to interpret and implement various constitutional provisions. The Court has recently endorsed historically-focused approaches to determine how the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and carry a firearm, how the First Amendment protects the rights to free speech and freedom of religion, and whether the Due Process Clause protects reproductive autonomy, among other questions.

Much scholarship and popular commentary surrounding THT portrays the methodology as sui generis: presenting unique analytical challenges and impervious to direct comparison to existing doctrinal approaches. However, the jurist most …

A Critique Of Findings On Gun Ownership, Use, And Imagined Use From The 2021 National Firearms Survey: Response To William English, Deborah Azraek, Joseph Blocher, Philip J. Cook, David Hemenway, Matthew Miller

Faculty Scholarship

For a paper that has not yet been through peer review or even been formally published, William English’s “2021 National Firearms Survey” has been remarkably prominent in gun rights advocacy and scholarship. As of December 2024, it has been cited in roughly sixty-five briefs, invoked at oral argument in the Supreme Court and multiple courts of appeals, and regularly cited in public writings and published academic work.

This response is offered in the spirit of a peer review. Our focus is on methodological issues, questionable statistical results, and problematic conclusions. Because of serious methodological issues, English’s draft fails to provide …

Judge–Scholar Collaboration And The Second Amendment, Andrew Willinger, Eric Ruben

Faculty Scholarship

Legal scholarship is overly abstract and theoretical, making it unhelpful to judges and lawyers. That, at least, is the classic critique from the bench. When it comes to the Second Amendment, however, a different pattern has emerged: judges consistently cite law review articles and look to the academy for guidance. Most recently, in United States v. Rahimi, some Justices went further, implicitly inviting more scholarly work to help the Court answer open questions raised by its novel methodological approach to the Second Amendment. This Article explores this aberrant trend.

We raise several explanations for the distinctive scholarly role in …

Loyalty Disarmament And The Undocumented, Pratheepan Gulasekaram

Publications

Since the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, lower federal courts have wrestled with Second Amendment claims raised by categories of people excluded from gun possession. Among those cases, several have been brought by noncitizens challenging their prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), the federal criminal ban on possession by unlawfully present noncitizens. In the post-Heller § 922(g)(5) cases, judges have opined on whether unlawfully present noncitizens were among "the people" who had the right to bear arms and whether the government regulation met the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny. More recently, however, the Supreme Court …

We The People, But Not You: The Eighth Circuit Says Undocumented Immigrants Are Not Part Of “The People” Who May Bear Arms, Caleb Kearney

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Ghost Guns: A Case Study On The Tension Between Public Exigencies And Statutory Construction, Bradley Krause

Catholic University Law Review

Administrative agencies often navigate public policy issues while simultaneously handling complex and highly technical matters. When facing a public emergency, how should courts interpret these agencies’ authorizing statutes? What rules of thumb exist to guide the courts? This Comment answers these questions through a case study on ongoing litigation pertaining to a recent ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) regulation. The regulation, targeted towards ghost guns (also known as “privately manufactured firearms”), seeks to incorporate these weapons within pre-existing definitions in the ATF’s authorizing statute, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). In spite of challenges to the regulation, …

A Conversation With Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Brett M. Kavanaugh, J. Joel Alicea

Catholic University Law Review

On Thursday, September 26th, 2024, the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at The Catholic University of America hosted a conversation between Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Professor J. Joel Alicea. This was the inaugural event of the new Center. The conversation covered topics such as constitutional interpretation, the separation of powers, religious liberty, and the Catholic intellectual tradition. This is a transcript of the conversation, and the text appears substantially as it was delivered. The video of the event may be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKvSwzkmqo.

Will Bruen Kill Cops?, Peter N. Salib, Guha Krishnamurthi

Fordham Law Review Online

Criminal procedure is a balancing act. On one hand, it must allow law enforcement officers to protect the public and themselves. On the other hand, criminal procedure must safeguard citizens’ individual constitutional rights—privacy, physical liberty, and bodily integrity. And now, the right to bear arms.

There is a serious tension here. Landmark Fourth Amendment cases like Terry v. Ohio, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, and Chimel v. California give the police wide latitude to seize firearms on the assumption that guns are dangerous. But these doctrines largely evolved before the Second Amendment’s ascendance. In District of Columbia v. Heller, …