Policy Responses to the Roanoke Shooting: 1) Mass Disarmament or 2) Mass Disarmament
"Stronger mental health screenings for prospective gun owners" would strip many harmless people of their Second Amendment rights.
"Stronger mental health screenings for prospective gun owners" would strip many harmless people of their Second Amendment rights.
Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer employ the same old anti-gun rhetoric.
In New York City, you can't even wield a fake gun on TV... unless you're making anti-gun propaganda.
"Something has to be done" is generally an indicator of a bad, reactionary policy.
Under current law, the Louisiana theater shooter was properly cleared.
And a federal court continues to violate handgun sellers' First Amendment rights in California
Man who opened fire in crowded theater fails with insanity-plea defense.
What Sanders' third-party home had to say about guns in 1972
Should "unlawful users" of "controlled substances" automatically lose their Second Amendment rights?
And why should all the millions caught up in the drug war be deprived of Second Amendment rights?
A bizarre scandal, even by political standards.
The logic may lean that way, but we can't be sure the Court values the Second Amendment's application that strongly.
A race to check off boxes on the Democratic side
The dragnet would ensnare many harmless people without having a significant impact on gun violence.
The urge to "do something" after the Charleston church attack inspires half-baked proposals.
SAFE Act widely ignored, New York state is forced to admit.
A much-hyped new Violence Policy Center study grossly misses the point about guns' value in self-defense.
Probably not: "I don't think it's an answer," says the former Bush adviser.
Meanwhile, Martin O'Malley tries to reposition himself.
Why "common-sense gun safety reforms" would not have "prevented what happened in Charleston."
Catching the candidate off guard
The absence of yet another law that somebody could have ignored just means that you have one legal violation instead of two.
This is relevant to my issues because...
Why the Charleston church massacre isn't likely to lead to stricter gun laws
"You can't have a bunch of people walking around with guns," Hillary's husband says.
The Constitution says otherwise.
The Supreme Court misses an opportunity to defend the Second Amendment.
Petition denied in Jackson v. San Francisco.
A left-wing pundit attacks the Vermont socialist for being insufficiently anti-gun.
Do the numbers tell us something they don't want to reveal?
Free Speech and Right to Bear Arms Both Violated by Keeping Him From Spreading Software that Helps People Make Guns At Home, Wilson insists.
In California, one gun was sold for every 39 state residents just last year.
Tighter gun laws or looser firearms restrictions? They're both coming to a state near you.
The presidential candidate, who once supported licensing and registration, says resistance to gun control "terrorizes" the nation.
Thank the nice congresswoman for the new guns!
The Garden State has littered its law books with the statutory equivalent of booby traps.
Agency admits "the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical" of the plan
Neither survey calls nor media and police reports capture the importance of private gun ownership.
Because throwing shade at capitalism is easier.
Gun rights community sees a disturbing ongoing crackdown on common ammo availability via ATF fiat.
New Jersey's draconian gun laws and mandatory minimum sentences converge.
Major victory for Second Amendment proponents.
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