Boy if this doesn’t show the insanely manipulable nature of the Bruen test. In Wolford, the Court said a Hawaii law requiring permission to bring your gun onto private party was best described as implicating the plain text “bear arms.” Here, the court is *very specific* in describing the conduct. 🤷‍♂️

The panel is split. Judge Higginson writes to say he does not think the going-armed laws support disarmament here & so would remand for reconsideration of the unique circumstances of this kind of predicate. Ho concurs in judgment only. Judge Haynes dissents to say she'd uphold the conviction.🤷‍♂️

As Judge Higginson details the 5th Cir actually has two inconsistent lines of precedent: one that makes the underlying predicate felony the *only* thing that can be considered & one that allows consideration of more (perhaps the facts that gave rise to the predicate, or even related conduct).

The panel overviews the state of the (very confused) law on the felon prohibitor: 7 circuits say it's const'l in all applications (DC circuit too, which isn't listed) 3 circuits (incl. 5th) allow as-applied (7th Cir says ok for at least dangerous felonies) But...the 5th is special

NEW: 5th Cir. 2nd Am decision on the felon prohibitor shows the problems w/ Bruen. The circuit precedent is confusing, inconsistent & unpredictable. @joeljohnson13.bsky.social & I are working on a project about the rule-of-law problems w/ these kinds of cases. www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...

Permit less carry rapidly spread over the last decade and a half. Because of its recency, there’s been little systemic research on its effects. This new paper finds that it makes society meaningfully worse off.

It is a hate crime to send an email like this in July

Is this what they call a Freudian slip 😬

I forgot to get any pictures but we just had a fantastic discussion about the most recent Second Amendment cases & what to expect from the assault weapons case next Term with @kevinschascheck.bsky.social @msmith750.bsky.social @slukemorgan.bsky.social & many others at #SEALS2026

Nothing like digging into a trashy beach read to relax before a panel later today on the Second Amendment at #SEALS2026

NEW: 9th Cir denies rehearing en banc in a facial Second Amendment challenge to CA's switchblade regulations. Unsurprisingly, VanDyke has a dissent that is a tantrum. Delusionally, he thinks Bruen is quite clear! Thanks for the hate-cite, though, I guess 🤷‍♂️ cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...

It defends an interpretation of the relevant test for Second Amendment coverage against circulating on the grounds that...(1) the Supreme Court didn't care it was circular & so neither should we(???) & (2) oh well.

The dissent is also just unpersuasive on point after point after point. It cloaks itself in originalist rhetoric but expressly says the scope of 2A coverage depends on choices made *today* about what guns people buy.

The majority has 2 grounds for reversal: (1) plffs failed to make out their *facial* challenge & (2) history & trad supports AR/LCM ban. The dissent says nothing abt about (1) until the very very end of the opinion & then apparently agrees without realizing that should mean the challenge fails! 🫨

As the majority says, "whatever else may be contributing to America’s mass-shooting epidemic, the record makes one thing clear: The more people killed, the more likely it is that the killer used an assault weapon and large-capacity magazines." In other words, guns do in fact kill people.

It quite cogently details how it would be silly to require historical legislatures to have created law to deal with a problem that didnt exist.

Finally, the majority notes that Bruen's rejection of a "more nuanced" approach for novel problems supports its conclusion, though it doesnt hang the whole ruling on it. Modern AR-style rifles are a dramatic change & mass shootings an unprecedent modern problem.

The majority usefully underlines the importance of the relevant principle: legislatures have the power to "impos[e] a targeted restriction on particularly dangerous weapons while leaving a host of others available for self-defense." Draw the line too narrowly & cts usurp the People's lawmaking power

Notably, the court find such laws to be comparably justified (Bruen's why) and comparably burdensome (Bruen's how) & fleshes out what it sees as additional questions in the how inquiry.

Incorporating its prior caselaw discussing specific analogues, the court singles out one for extended treatment: historical bowie knife regulation. Such knives were common, but legislatures restricted them when they caused harm.

But then it goes on to independently ground its holding in the analysis of the claim wrt to AR-15s and LCMs. The court assumes coverage at Bruen's plain text prong (unlike Bevis, which had largely rested on step one) & moves to historical tradition.

The decision here, the first post-Wolford/Hemani appeals decision on assault weapons, is clear & lucid, focusing more on methodology & principles than minute historical-law parsing. For starters, it notes the facial nature of the challenge & says that alone would be enough to defeat the claim.

NEW: In a major opinion by Trump-appointed Judge Amy St. Eve, the 7th Cir *upholds* Illinois' ban on AR-15s & large capacity magazines--the very same assault weapon issue the Supreme Court just agreed to review next term. Circuit courts remain unanimous. media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Opin...

Re-reading the Supreme Court's two new 2nd Am cases & it's breathtaking how bad they are. For an area of law tied to history, they are remarkably historically illiterate. Compare Alito's statement praising everyday gun carry w/ the 1843 NC Supreme Ct on what historical figures actually thought.

Excited to be chairing this panel & presenting my paper in Dublin this morning at the International Society of Public Law conference! 🇮🇪 #ICON2026

🚨 This morning, in addition to all else it did, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Second Amendment challenges to assault weapon prohibitions next term. That’s a bad sign. The federal courts of appeals have unanimously rejected these challenges.

To be clear I also said who the fork knows how *this* Supreme Court will rule on those other laws… www.axios.com/2026/06/25/s...

I may be biased but I think this dissent from Jackson is truly superb.

Allll of this. If some of our shameful history is off limits, how do we draw that line? Many moons ago I tried to work some of this out: www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/on-so...

In discussing the relevance of the Black Codes, Jackson offers this perfect citation demonstrating Alito’s pure unprincipled hackery.