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
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
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
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
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.
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
.@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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
@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)