William Baude (University of Chicago Law School) & Robert Leider (George Mason University – Antonin Scalia Law School) have posted The General Law Right to Bear Arms (Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 99, 2024) (34 pages) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court announced a text and history test for evaluating Second Amendment challenges. This test has produced both confusion and criticism. Many lower court judges have construed the Supreme Court’s test to require a determination whether the Framing generation had a nearly identical regulation, but many modern regulations have no direct Framing-era analogue. Judges have objected to Bruen, lamenting that they are not historians; scholars have criticized Bruen’s test as ill-defined and unworkable.
We argue that Bruen’s text and history test has not been properly understood. Bruen is best understood as continuing the Supreme Court’s original law approach to the Second Amendment. Under an original law approach, courts must determine and apply the Framing-era law protecting the right to keep and bear arms. This means that courts must determine the principles that separated valid regulations of the right to bear arms from unconstitutional infringements. Courts must then apply these legal principles to modern forms of regulation. Applying old principles to new facts sometimes requires analogical reasoning and extrapolation, but these are or should be basic tools of legal reasoning. In short, Bruen does not require courts to become historians; it asks that they be common-law judges, applying old law in new times.
Via Volokh Conspiracy, where Professor Baude includes excerpts illustrating how the paper analyzes the pending Supreme Court case United States v. Rahimi.
RELATED: Also at Volokh Conspiracy, David Kopel has this post: The Solicitor General's response to my amicus brief in Rahimi. His brief is here; the signers are:
Randy Barnett (Georgetown), Robert Cottrol (George Washington), Lee Francis (Mississippi College), Donald Kilmer (Lincoln), Joyce Malcolm (George Mason, emerita), George Mocsary (Wyoming), Joseph Muha (Akron), Joseph Olson
(Mitchell Hamline, emeritus), Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), and Gregory Wallace (Campbell).
The brief is notable in that, while ostensibly filed in support of respondent (the defendant), it acknowledges — indeed, directly argues — that Second Amendment rights can be denied to people found to be dangerous to others (as Rahimi was).
Posted at 6:09 AM