A Federal Judge Blocks New Jersey's Sweeping Restrictions on Public Gun Possession
By banning firearms from a wide range of "sensitive places," the state effectively nullified the right to bear arms.
By banning firearms from a wide range of "sensitive places," the state effectively nullified the right to bear arms.
The law is hard to defend on logical, practical, or constitutional grounds.
Because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud conviction, Bryan Range is no longer allowed to own guns.
The decision defends the separation of powers and the rule of law against an attempt to prohibit firearm accessories by administrative fiat.
The new ban, which has been blocked by a state judge, so far has fared better in federal court.
If an order had been issued, it would have expired months before the attack unless police successfully sought an extension.
The state's ban applies unless the property owner posts a sign allowing firearms or otherwise gives "express consent."
Even people who use cannabis for medical purposes risk severe penalties for daring to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The state made it a felony to carry handguns for self-defense in "any place of worship or religious observation."
Carry permit applicants would have to prove they are not dangerous, and guns would be banned from myriad locations.
Legislators in both states favor subjective standards and sweeping restrictions for carry permits.
The president supports the law that could send his son to prison for lying about his personal habits while buying a firearm.
The decision is a warning to states that impose vague permit standards or sweeping bans on guns in "sensitive locations."
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.
The Texas gubernatorial candidate's interpretation reflects his assumption that opponents of "assault weapon" bans don't care about murdered schoolchildren.
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.
Regulators imposed the ban based on a highly implausible and counterintuitive reading of federal law.
Even while conceding that the rifles they want to ban are commonly used for lawful purposes, they refuse to grapple with the implications.
Recent polling suggests that Americans are starting to recognize that such laws make no sense.
No, these rifles are not "the weapon of choice in most mass murders."
That new crime, which is punishable by up to 15 years in federal prison, includes receipt of firearms by "prohibited persons."
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act increases the penalties for violating arbitrary firearm bans.
The vast majority of federal firearm offenses involve illegal possession, often without aggravating conduct or a history of violence.
The Supreme Court unambiguously rejected the sort of reasoning that a federal appeals court used to uphold New York's ban.
Several states are retaining subjective criteria for carry permits or imposing new restrictions on gun possession.
While gun control enthusiasts rushed to defend Japan's firearm restrictions after Shinzo Abe's assassination, copying that approach in the U.S. is legally, politically, and practically impossible.
Some states promptly eliminated subjective standards, while others refused to recognize the decision's implications.
The answers underline the limitations of laws that aim to prevent this sort of crime by restricting access to firearms.
"I don't need to have numbers," Gov. Kathy Hochul said when asked about the evidence supporting the law.
The Court told appeals courts to reconsider their conclusions in light of last week's ruling against New York's restrictions on public possession of firearms.
The ruling against New York's carry permit policy is a rebuke to courts that routinely rubber-stamp gun restrictions.
The legislation prohibits firearm sales based on juvenile records and subsidizes state laws that suspend gun rights without due process.
Senators are mulling legislation that would expand the categories of people who are disqualified from owning guns.
If Congress decides to encourage them, it should not overlook the importance of due process protections.
Although the Arkansas senator claims to be targeting "violent felons," his draconian bill would affect many people who pose no threat.
The administration's slippery terminology illustrates the challenge of distinguishing between "good" and "bad" guns.
An analysis of such crimes suggests the president’s policy prescriptions are unlikely to have a meaningful impact.
The president implies that anyone who resists his agenda is complicit in the murder of innocents.
Two federal appeals courts recently concluded that such age restrictions are unconstitutional.