A New Report Casts Doubt on the Assumption That Gun Law Violators Are a Public Menace
The vast majority of federal firearm offenses involve illegal possession, often without aggravating conduct or a history of violence.
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.