The Trump Administration Has a Conflicted Relationship with the Second Amendment
The right to bear arms is inherently anti-authoritarian at a time when Trump wields authority.
The right to bear arms is inherently anti-authoritarian at a time when Trump wields authority.
The prosecutor's threat renewed concerns about the Trump administration's commitment to protecting Second Amendment rights.
Drug policy reformers and Second Amendment advocates team up in a case before the Supreme Court.
They’re not getting the whole “shall not be infringed” part of the U.S. and Virginia constitutions.
The department now describes the threat as "several civilians" who were "yelling and blowing whistles."
The Liberty Justice Center is urging the Supreme Court to uphold a 5th Circuit decision rejecting the claim that cannabis consumers have no Second Amendment rights.
Federal officials suggested that carrying a firearm is inherently threatening and an invitation to police violence.
Although the president initially reinforced that plainly inaccurate narrative, his subsequent comments cast doubt on the initial justification for shooting the Minneapolis protester.
"The victims are the Border Patrol agents" who killed Alex Pretti, says one DHS official, who previously claimed Pretti wanted to "massacre law enforcement."
"Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it's a Constitutionally protected God-given right," writes Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.).
The right to keep and bear arms is about resisting tyranny.
The state requires carry permit holders to obtain advance permission before bringing firearms into businesses.
They are joining the Trump administration in urging the Supreme Court to uphold a federal law that disarms "unlawful" drug consumers.
The order had apparently been issued just based on the father’s statement, right after he learned of the death, that the mother (his wife) “would shoot herself.”
The Supreme Court’s January docket is packed with big cases.
The ruling, which emphasizes the lack of historical support for such a law, is unlikely to survive en banc review.
If the decision doesn't go en banc, it may go to the Supreme Court, because the Second Circuit held the opposite (and there's thus a circuit split).
The department's lawsuit notes that the prohibited firearms are "in common use" for "lawful purposes," meaning they are covered by the Second Amendment.
Plus: Homeownership myths and realities, discrimination at the theater, career diplomats brought home, and more...
The basis for the attempt was that the girl had texted a classmate that she was thinking of hanging herself.
Individuals and communities must take responsibility for their own safety.
Plus: Universal child care polls well, DEI and generational dynamics, and more...
Plus: Chile elects a right-winger, Jimmy Lai gets convicted, midair collision narrowly averted, and more...
So concludes the Louisiana Supreme Court, though my sense is that other courts may well have decided this differently.
The Justice Department's litigation positions are at odds with its avowed intent to protect Second Amendment rights.
It's not surprising that the NRA and other Second Amendment advocates spoke out against a trans firearm ban floated by the Trump administration.
The document remains remarkably resilient, even as Republicans and Democrats keep launching assaults on liberty.
Much of what the federal government does on a daily basis flouts constitutional protections and offends human decency.
Congress justified that National Firearms Act of 1934 as a revenue measure—a rationale undermined by the repeal of taxes on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
Judge Willett thinks that some federal statutes have been interpreted and applied in ways that conflict with the notion that the federal government only has limited and enumerated powers.
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.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks