"consisting of approximately 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns." There are also estimates of AR-15 ownership and ownership of magazines that hold over 10 rounds (which some state laws classify as "large-capacity").
You don't have to prove to a government official that you have “proper cause” to exercise your constitutional right, the Court ruled.
But wouldn't the arguments in the dissent equally cast doubt on all historical analysis in constitutional cases, or even statutory or common-law cases?
The results also confirm that "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines are widely used for lawful purposes.
The analysis reinforces the historical case for armed self-defense in response to racist violence.
Approximately 36 blocks around Times Square will now be deemed a "gun-free zone." What purpose is served by this?
The appellate court would leave the matter for the district court to decide in the first instance, subject to appellate review; Judge Matey dissented, arguing that the appellate court should have considered the issue directly.
Gun control advocates may embrace the 10th Amendment.
We should be skeptical of some Democrats' newfound embrace of "freedom" until they abandon freedom-restricting policies.
The Texas gubernatorial candidate's interpretation reflects his assumption that opponents of "assault weapon" bans don't care about murdered schoolchildren.
Legal history before 1900 provides no support for licensing or training mandates for keeping an arm at home
It is hard to see how, given the contortions required to deliver the unilateral prohibition that Donald Trump demanded.
The Justice Department says that policy is rational and consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.
Article for Cato Supreme Court Review
Regulators imposed the ban based on a highly implausible and counterintuitive reading of federal law.
Lawmakers claimed they were just banning marketing guns to kids.
It is unlikely to stop mass shootings, but it will restrict Second Amendment rights and unjustly send people to prison.
Even while conceding that the rifles they want to ban are commonly used for lawful purposes, they refuse to grapple with the implications.
Political scientist David Leal explains why conservatives should reject efforts to compel states and localities to help enforce federal laws these jurisdictions oppose.
On average, the minimum requirement for cops is about 650 hours, compared to about 1,300 hours for barbers.
Yet the civil rights movement has long had a gun rights component.
Recent polling suggests that Americans are starting to recognize that such laws make no sense.
A new state law prohibits localities from prohibiting or licensing "no-impact" home-based businesses. That's allowing a Des Moines couple to sell guns from their house located just across the street from the governor's mansion.
The Senate majority leader has repeatedly blocked a bill that would address the robbery threat to state-licensed pot shops.
No, these rifles are not "the weapon of choice in most mass murders."
The streaming platform has said gun- and abortion-related ads submitted by Democrats are too controversial to be aired.
Both laws seek to evade judicial review by delegating enforcement exclusively to private parties.
Ruling against town of Superior's law is the first post-Bruen decision on arms bans
That new crime, which is punishable by up to 15 years in federal prison, includes receipt of firearms by "prohibited persons."
Plus: The emptiness of "national conservatism," anti-tech antitrust antics, and more...
Taking personal responsibility turns out to be a better idea than putting faith in the state.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act increases the penalties for violating arbitrary firearm bans.
Only you can be relied upon to protect you and your loved ones. Ignore anybody who claims otherwise.
The vast majority of federal firearm offenses involve illegal possession, often without aggravating conduct or a history of violence.
Senior Editor Jacob Sullum examines how the claim that Japanese gun restrictions account for the country's low violent crime rate isn't as simple as it sounds.
The Supreme Court unambiguously rejected the sort of reasoning that a federal appeals court used to uphold New York's ban.
The Institute for Justice urges SCOTUS to renounce that open-ended exception to the Fourth Amendment.
The risk of broad and overcautious policies is one we should take more seriously.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks