Challenging his conviction for illegal gun possession, Curtis Squire argues that the Commerce Clause cannot justify bans on intrastate, noncommercial conduct.
Given the Second Amendment's history, several briefs argue, a gun's suitability for militia service suggests Americans have a right to possess it.
The case hinges on the distinction between "unusual" weapons and arms in common use for lawful purposes.
Meanwhile, the top court of Massachusetts considers whether the state can deny carry permits to applicants who are deemed "unsuitable."
A SCOTUS petition argues that the practice, which allows a judicial finding of dangerousness based on a preponderance of the evidence, violates the Fifth Amendment.
Statistician Aaron Brown and professor Robert Spitzer debate the efficacy of gun control.
During the last century, the Commerce Clause has replaced the Taxing Clause as an excuse for federal legislation.
When Congress eliminated taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, it also eliminated the constitutional justification for regulating them.
In a decision written by a Joe Biden nominee, the appeals court addresses a long-simmering issue that the Supreme Court will consider during its next term.
After upholding the Second Amendment rights of drug users and carry permit holders, the justices will address the constitutionality of "assault weapon" bans.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argues that both laws are unconstitutional because they prohibit arms in common use for lawful purposes.
The case could settle the long-simmering issue of whether the Second Amendment covers commonly owned but politically disfavored rifles.
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 Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Hemani could open the door to relief for cannabis consumers convicted of illegal gun possession.
The decision is a modest but welcome step toward rectifying the injustice of criminalizing conduct that violates no one’s rights.
Even under the Supreme Court's highly elastic understanding of that clause, Thomas says, such laws do not qualify as regulation of interstate commerce.
The unanimous decision upholding the gun rights of cannabis consumers is striking given the Supreme Court's long history of accommodating the war on drugs.
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.
The civil liberties group, which long maintained that there is no constitutional right to arms, sang a different tune at the Supreme Court this year.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argues that both laws violate the Second Amendment by banning arms in common use for lawful purposes.
Trump and his underlings seem less inclined to worry about the Second Amendment when it protects people outside the MAGA coalition.
The ban, which targets guns based on criteria that make little sense, seems vulnerable to a challenge under the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.
A Supreme Court case illustrates the potential for trans-partisan alliances between critics of gun control and critics of the war on drugs.
Alexander Ledvina was convicted of violating a federal law at the center of a Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court is considering.
Most of the justices seemed unsatisfied by the Trump administration's argument that the law is constitutional as applied to a Texas marijuana user.
"We see this as an important civil liberties issue," says an ACLU lawyer.
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.
Have your paper critiqued by experts from all perspectives at the 2026 Firearms Law Works-in-Progress Conference
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.
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 ruling, which emphasizes the lack of historical support for such a law, is unlikely to survive en banc review.
The department's lawsuit notes that the prohibited firearms are "in common use" for "lawful purposes," meaning they are covered by the Second Amendment.
The Justice Department's litigation positions are at odds with its avowed intent to protect Second Amendment rights.
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.
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.
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.
The law is one of several attempts to override the right to bear arms by making it impractical to exercise.
The decision, which hinges on an exception to the Gun-Free School Zones Act, does not say whether that law is consistent with the Second Amendment.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
