Guns, Property Rights, and the Second Amendment
The government cannot force private property owners to allow guns on their land. But the Supreme Court rightly ruled today that it also cannot impose a presumption of exclusion.
The government cannot force private property owners to allow guns on their land. But the Supreme Court rightly ruled today that it also cannot impose a presumption of exclusion.
The decision means similar laws in other states likewise violate the Second Amendment, and it casts doubt on the constitutionality of location-specific gun bans that cover a lot of territory.
The conservative justice continues to wage a lonely legal crusade over the Commerce Clause.
"Petitioner's testimony confirmed his 2017 confrontation with his parents, he had authored the Reddit posts, and he had publicly uttered racial slurs and had made statements about raping women."
Three in 10 Americans at least occasionally carry a firearm.
A notable 9-0 Second Amendment decision that features three concurring opinions, all of which make good points.
A landmark win for the right to keep and bear arms in United States v. Hemani.
Law enforcement in Colorado can now inspect the records of any firearms dealer in the state "at all times" without a warrant, probable cause, or limits.
Three Second Amendment groups say the law violates the right to own arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.
Even as the Justice Department files lawsuits aimed at vindicating gun rights, it undermines them in other cases.
While not groundbreaking, the regulatory shifts offer some welcome relief.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argues that both laws violate the Second Amendment by banning arms in common use for lawful purposes.
From immigration and guns to executive power, transgender athletes, and mail-in ballots, these are the Supreme Court cases to watch out for in May and June.
Guns disrupted the established order—and sparked modern-sounding debates over whether they could be effectively regulated.
"This Animation is literally false as a factual matter," the judge concludes, issuing a permanent injunction against the use of the animation for advertising purposes.
If I can build a functional, unregistered handgun in less than two hours, so can you.
"[T]he trial court identified only two actions that purportedly constituted 'coercive control': the first was 'coordinating with someone Mia thought was her friend to deliver her' to her parents, and the second was an 'unreasonable level of monitoring a nearly grown woman,' which the trial court stated 'is concerning.'"
At best, the authorities will show up after the threat has already occurred.
The death of El Mencho shows why decades of prohibition enforcement have only strengthened cartels.
Panic over guns drives government officials to propose restricting popular technology.
The Second Amendment protects your right to carry a gun at a protest.
Federal law bans the creation of a gun registry, but regulators made one anyway.
A “sensitive place” requires comprehensive security and proper historical analogues.
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.
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."
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 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.
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.
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