Why Does SCOTUS Hear So Few Second Amendment Cases?
The right to keep and bear arms occupies a curious place in American legal history.
The right to keep and bear arms occupies a curious place in American legal history.
Steven Duarte is one of several petitioners who are asking the justices to address the constitutionality of that absurdly broad gun ban.
Elsid Aliaj says the seizure violated state law and the Second Amendment.
Once we let our rights become privileges, government officials can revoke them on a whim.
His administration is urging the Supreme Court to uphold a prosecution for violating a federal law that bars illegal drug users from owning firearms.
The law applies to millions of Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety, including cannabis consumers in states that have legalized marijuana.
According to California lawmakers, Kamala Harris’s pistol is a potential machinegun.
The cases give the justices a chance to address a constitutionally dubious policy that disarms peaceful Americans.
That strategy, which rejects the possibility of sincere disagreement, is poisonous to rational debate.
The law is one of several attempts to override the right to bear arms by making it impractical to exercise.
The decision, which hinges on an exception to the Gun-Free School Zones Act, does not say whether that law is consistent with the Second Amendment.
Critics of Prof. William English's survey sometimes miss the mark, but also raise valid questions.
Reason’s Jacob Sullum traces the shared failures of drug prohibition and gun laws, showing how both undermine civil liberties, racial justice, and commonsense safety.
All liberty involves tradeoffs. So does repressing liberty.
The phrases are a mix of anti-fascist sentiments and irony-poisoned internet memes.
Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch discuss the murder of Charlie Kirk and how political violence is reshaping the national climate.
A unanimous three-judge panel concluded that "no historical tradition supports" the 1987 law.
Such a gun ban is not authorized by statute or allowed by the Second Amendment.
Plus: a weak jobs report and Trump’s economic record, New College of Florida weighing privatization after its clash with DeSantis, and the DOJ pushes to block transgender Americans from gun ownership
She had admitted that some (though not all) of the speech was false, but the injunction (entered in a restraining order case, not following a full defamation trial) extends to all speech, not just falsehoods: "Even speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment may be enjoined if it disturbs the petitioning party's peace."
The NRA says it won't support "any policy proposals that implement sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process."
Minnesota's proposed firearm restrictions raise serious constitutional questions—and offer little in return.
The Justice Department reportedly is considering a regulation aimed at disarming "mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria."
The Justice Department has proposed a pathway to restore gun rights for millions of Americans.
The federal law relies on a risible reading of the Commerce Clause to restrict a constitutional right.
The appeals court rejected most of the arguments in favor of that policy, saying "the government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger."
Britain’s crackdown on “zombie-style” knives shows how politicians blame objects instead of criminals—and how bans only hurt the law-abiding.
Plus: Beware of distorted data, inside the mind of Curtis Sliwa, a thong-related clarification, and more...
The appeals court concluded that the government had failed to show that policy is consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
There’s no historical precedent for trying to ration constitutionally protected rights.
Plus: The National Guard deployed to D.C., the Trump-Putin meeting on Ukraine, Texas Democrats flee the state, and a listener question on free speech in the U.K.
DIY firearms aren’t just an end-run around the law; they represent a libertarian political movement.
The same newspaper notes that the killer "obtained a firearm legally," which means he was never "committed" to a mental health institution.
The case argues that, since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated taxes on the transfer of certain weapons, the constitutional basis for registering those weapons no longer exists.
Plus: AI reanimations of those who've died, Elizabeth Warren x Zohran Mamdani, and more...
Kathy Hochul's focus on "assault weapons" is puzzling, since the perpetrator easily could have killed the same number of people with a gun that did not fall into that politically defined category.
Despite record seizures and restrictive laws, New York City has struggled to stem the tide of untraceable firearms.
Golden State ammunition restrictions have been voided for violating the Second Amendment.