The Arbitrary Ban on Gun Possession by Drug Users Invites Wildly Uneven Enforcement
Violators are rarely caught, while the unlucky few who face prosecution can go to prison for years.
Violators are rarely caught, while the unlucky few who face prosecution can go to prison for years.
The decision casts further doubt on the constitutionality of a federal law that makes it a felony for illegal drug users to own firearms.
A judge's questions about his plea deal should not obscure the point that the law he broke is unjust and arguably unconstitutional.
The government appears to agree that Charles Foehner shot a man in self-defense. He may spend decades behind bars anyway.
California’s governor insists his “28th Amendment” would leave the right to arms “intact.”
The decision highlights the injustice of a federal law that bans gun possession by broad categories of "prohibited persons."
As pot prohibition collapses across the country, that policy is increasingly untenable.
The state defied a Supreme Court ruling by banning guns from myriad "sensitive places."
U.S. District Judge Robert Payne concluded that 18-to-20-year-olds have the same Second Amendment rights as older adults.
Mass shooters typically do not have disqualifying records, and restrictions on private gun sales are widely flouted.
A preliminary injunction in Illinois may signal the demise of a long-running public policy fraud.
Once again, firearm-averse legislators chase after a restriction-averse public.
A federal lawsuit notes that the new law draws arbitrary distinctions and targets guns in common use for legal purposes.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone was unimpressed by the Biden administration's argument that marijuana users are too "dangerous" to own guns.
The Biden administration is defending a federal law that disarms Americans based on "boilerplate language" in orders that judges routinely grant.
The 5th Circuit noted that such orders can be issued without any credible evidence of a threat to others.
Defending a categorical ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers, the Biden administration cites inapt "historical analogues."
The president wants to redefine federally licensed gun dealers in service of an ineffective anti-crime strategy.
Even as the president bemoans the injustice of pot prohibition, his administration insists that cannabis consumers have no right to arms.
It’s a win for self-defense rights in ongoing campaigns to conscript businesses for political causes.
Conservatives have been slow to recognize the threat that drug prohibition poses to gun rights and other civil liberties.
The president and his predecessor both tried to impose gun control by executive fiat.
A New York Times story about the state's location-specific gun bans glosses over the vast territory they cover.
Although the law did not change, regulators suddenly decided to criminalize unregistered possession of braced pistols.
The government argued that marijuana users have no Second Amendment rights because they are dangerous, unvirtuous, and untrustworthy.
The president seems to have forgotten his concession that such laws leave murderers with plenty of options that are "just as deadly."
The researchers identified 662 cases involving threats to multiple victims, but they concede that it's likely "there are many more threats than completed events."
The city has not granted a single permit since the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms last June.
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.
Professors Miller and Tucker miss the mark, while Saul Cornell disdains accuracy
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.