Despite such magazines being widely and lawfully used, and with the ban having been tossed out by other courts and court panels, the 9th Circuit thinks the ban does not violate the Second Amendment
Eric Adams thinks he can give the police more power to hunt for guns without making innocent minority men the inevitable target.
The jury rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case.
Some are using Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal to argue for harsher laws and punishments. Andrew Coffee IV's case is a study in why that's an awful idea.
Restrictions have little chance of moving beyond political theater, or of winning compliance if passed.
The trial became an upside-down microcosm for the polarized debates about the U.S. criminal justice system.
This stop was a Fourth Amendment violation, holds a federal court.
Plus: Yale University faces an interesting lawsuit, the ACLU takes a stance on student loan debt, and more...
Defendant had posted three photos to Instagram showing (1) a movie ticket, (2) ammunition, and (3) the inside of a theater, and also one to Snapchat showing (4) a handgun.
Fanta Bility's death has revived an under-the-radar debate about the doctrine of transferred intent.
The court takes a narrow view of 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), but rejects liability as a matter of state law: “public policy [with regard to how gun sales can be arranged] is more properly determined by the peoples’ elected representatives rather than by the courts.”
Despite a tragic on-set death, there is no need to involve police officers in still more aspects of people's lives.
Judge Bruce Schroeder rightly reprimanded Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger for what he called a "grave constitutional violation."
The Supreme Court should reject a law that bars ordinary people from carrying guns for self-defense.
Plus: Biden administration defends vaccine mandate, Bari Weiss announces the University of Austin, and more...
A majority of the Court voiced skepticism about the state’s conceal-carry licensing scheme.
An amicus brief in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson warns of how S.B. 8's structure could be used to target other constitutional rights.
The idea that massive government spending, hate speech laws, and gun control will improve America—when they failed horribly elsewhere—is a dangerous myth.
Several groups urging the Supreme Court to overturn New York’s virtual ban on bearing arms emphasize the policy’s racist roots and racially disproportionate impact.
Carrying this archaeologists' accessory in the city's downtown without government permission is now a misdemeanor.
The Texas law “could just as easily be used by other States to restrict First or Second Amendment rights,” the Firearms Policy Coalition tells SCOTUS.
The gun rights group has filed a brief supporting the petition for certiorari in one of the cases challenging the controversial Texas abortion law.
The Second Amendment right is vibrant and prominent for many citizens. The Seventh Amendment right has shriveled to a husk of its former self.
Recognizing the difference between substantive and procedural rights helps enormously in understanding the battles over applying the first eight amendments of the U.S. Constitution to the states. Procedural rights have failed; not only have they not improved procedures, they have made things worse.
Substantive rights have a core that can be meaningfully interpreted and protected; they can exist independently of a particular government or a particular legal system. Procedural rights lack such an independent core because they are necessarily embedded in a whole system of legal procedure, and they depend on that system for their meaning.
The verdict was chiefly based on the actions of protesters and arsonists; the Georgia Court of Appeals rejected it, and the Georgia Supreme Court has just refused to rehear the case.
Although the affinities between the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and the Seventh Amendment right to civil jury trial seem strong, there are crucial differences. The first concerns individual accountability and the ability to understand responsibilities; the second concerns the distinction between substantive rights and procedural rights.
A Supreme Court decision against New York's gun control scheme would be a victory for both criminal justice reform and the Second Amendment.
Founding realities refute New York’s arguments supporting its gun carry ban.
Former Judge Luttig's arguments are off base.
The Massachusetts Model was not a carry ban and required aggressive behavior before it applied.
New York takes a long shot at saving its firearm carry ban.
New York’s Supreme Court brief on the Second Amendment is flawed.
The justices robe up for another term.
Young people who came of age after 9/11 aren't snowflakes despite being exposed to a series of catastrophic events and apocalyptic news narratives.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
