Andrew Willinger

Executive Director, @DukeFirearmsLaw, writing / commenting on the Second Amendment and firearms law.

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

My next article, Private Governance and Originalism, is now on SSRN & will be published in the @StanLRev!

I ask how originalist approaches that look to historical reg practice should account for the important role of private groups in early Am. society

https://t.co/148qsjRi9r

[SMU Dedman School of Law @SMULawSchool]

What role do scholars play in shaping constitutional law?

In a new essay, Professor @ericmruben and @AndrewWillinger, executive director of @DukeFirearmsLaw, examine how legal scholarship is driving the Supreme Court’s approach to the Second Amendment.

Read: https://t.co/zhLx48IX5J

[The Regulatory Review @TheRegReview]

In a recent essay, @AndrewWillinger of @DukeFirearmsLaw argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok—upholding ATF “ghost-gun” rules—shows public-safety and law-and-order politics outweigh broad deregulatory gun-rights rhetoric. https://t.co/iIzbdGVHsy

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

Does originalism always work in practice when it filters down to state courts? I blogged @BrennanCenter about a recent Kansas case that confronted that issue in the gun rights-context https://t.co/3qV9Hdd916

[Christine Corcos @LpcProf]

Willinger on Missing Pieces: Gaps in the Record of Early American Decisional Law @AndrewWillinger @DukeFirearmsLaw @DukeLawJournal / https://t.co/1kwzqZ6bZh

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

@LawLawCoolJ @WFULawReview Of course! Just let me know your email address and I'll send it over

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

Excited to share that my next article "History and Tradition as Heightened Scrutiny" will be published in the Wake Forest Law Review! Look forward to working w/ the great @WFULawReview student editors. Not on SSRN yet, but I'm happy to share the draft by email.

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

@jschrinerbriggs Thanks so much - I'll send it over!

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

@PJSobkowski @WFULawReview Thanks - I'll send it over!

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

@seb_delgado28 @WFULawReview Thanks - I'll send it over!

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

@DruStevenson @WFULawReview Thanks, Dru!!

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

@AnthonyMKreis @WFULawReview Thanks so much!

[Nᴏᴛʀᴇ Dᴀᴍᴇ L. Rᴇᴠ. (Notre Dame Law Review) @NotreDameLRev]

In "Bruen’s Enforcement Puzzle: Unearthing and Adjudicating the Historical Enforcement Record in Second Amendment Cases," @AndrewWillinger analyzes the historical enforcement of gun regulations and notes how Bruen's treatment of discriminatory taint with such regulations may be

[Duke Law @DukeLaw]

.@DukeFirearmsLaw Exec Dir @AndrewWillinger writes for The Regulatory Review (@TheRegReview) on the relevance and role of statutory-regulatory time gaps in administrative law cases https://t.co/VVKfoszmDL

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

And I show why such regulatory time gaps may become increasingly significant as a factor in admin law cases with the demise of Chevron, as the Court itself signaled in Loper Bright.

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

Excited to share that my essay "Cargill and the Regulatory Time Gap" is now published in @TheRegReview - thank you to all who provided comments and to the editors for their excellent work! 🧵https://t.co/Qu7kV8vDuw

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

In the essay, I argue that the majority in Cargill may have been especially skeptical of ATF’s bump stock ban bc it was adopted nearly 100 yrs *after* the authorizing statute, the 1934 National Firearms Act.

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

Thinking about Rahimi, are there other instances where a justice wrote the maj opinion in a case articulating a new rule, test, or major change in the law (at least arguably), and then only a short time later dissented from an opinion applying that rule/test?

[Eric Ruben @ericmruben]

Overlooked: state cts resolve more 2A claims than fed cts and are extremely burdened by SCOTUS's ambiguous recent guidance.

I highlight that burden and how Rahimi does little to resolve it (even in DV cases) @statecourtrept @BrennanCenter @SMULawSchool

https://t.co/gevaAjJ89v

[Andrew Willinger @AndrewWillinger]

@KellyEWRoskam @DruStevenson Yes for sure, and my understanding was (c)(ii) orders would have to be *based on* a threat finding. Probably worth another post at some point, but I think this gets at the leg consensus issue (more consensus means no req’t to tie to firearm use, and maybe the inverse)