Jake Charles Profile picture
Mar 29 5 tweets 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
#ICYMI Earlier this week, I wrote a post @DukeFirearmsLaw laying out some of my findings from an in-depth review of the 174 Second Amendment fed court decisions issued in the first 8 months after Bruen came down. It showed huge effects in the aftermath.

firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/03/by-the…
I also made public the spreadsheet I used to categorize these cases, so folks could check my math & see the type & variety of claims coming down & how I classified each of them.

📶That spreadsheet is available here 👇

firearmslaw.duke.edu/wp-content/upl…
I disclosed the assumptions I made & people can quibble with details, but the full picture seems undeniable. Bruen's been monumental.

Here's what I found for the percent of cases in which at least one claim won:

✴️31.6% of civil cases
✴️6.6.% of crim cases
✴️12.1% all cases
For individual claims, the disparity b/t civil and criminal cases is even greater: Image
As for claim types, the least successful were:

◼️ felon ban (0/85)
◼️ commercial regs (0/14)
◼️ NFA, unlawful gun use, bail conditions & sentence enhancement (0/27)

The most successful were:

◼️ private prop default flip (5/5)
◼️ sensitive place (7/13)
◼️ licensing rules (3/3)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jake Charles

Jake Charles Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JacobDCharles

Mar 31
Add another to the pile of laws laid waste by Bruen. Today, a district court struck down MN’s requirement that a person be 21 to get a handgun carry permit, ruling that the Second Amendment forbids this kind of age restriction. (h/t @DruStevenson)

tmsnrt.rs/40zBCZk
The court has an interesting discussion on the first, plain-text prong. Bruen left this step unspecified, but the court here points out several ways to conduct the inquiry. Image
The court notes that the plain text prong has generated some disagreement among courts. But here it concludes those under 18 fall within the plain meaning of “the people” based on a comparison to other rights, militia laws, lack of an express age limit, & Heller’s dicta. Image
Read 8 tweets
Mar 21
NEW: CA fed court says the state's Unsafe Handgun law violates the Second Amendment. The state can't impose novel safety features, like indicators a gun is loaded, a mechanism disabling the gun from firing when a magazine is removed, or microstamping. /1

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
The law imposes reqs on new handguns that no other state imposes. I'm sympathetic to the burden these reqs place on purchases of new guns, but I'm still not sure how the court concludes this conduct is so clearly protected by the "plain text" of the 2A's wording. /2
I agree w/ the argument that these laws implicate the 2nd Am, I just am not sure how one can read the 2A and conclude that the *plain language* protects "purchasing state-of-the-art handguns on the primary market." 🤷‍♂️

That (to me) is a problem w/ Bruen's initial prong. /3
Read 7 tweets
Mar 21
🧵I’ve just posted to @SSRN an updated version of my article on the Court’s 2nd Am decision, “The Dead Hand of a Silent: Bruen, Gun Rights & the Shackles of History,” forthcoming w/ @DukeLawJournal.

📈
This edition has charts showing Bruen’s effects!
📊

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… Image
I reviewed all adjudicated 2nd Am claims in federal court in the first 8 months after Bruen & found remarkable disruption. 174 decisions weighed in on 2A claims & a surprising amount of them--21 by my count--concluded the state action violated the 2A. Image
B/c some of these decisions included multiple different claims, I broke out the #s and success rates by claims themselves. Here, 31 claims prevailed out of 212 total claims adjudicated. (See the paper, pp. 45-48, for classification details & caveats.) Image
Read 6 tweets
Mar 18
🚨 Acting on a "a highly expedited schedule," DOJ has asked the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit's ruling in US v. Rahimi that invalidated the federal law barring those under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. 🚨

Petition: bit.ly/42nZy36
If the Court does agree to hear the case, which seems like a real possibility, we could have our first post-Bruen test of how aligned the conservative justices are over the scope of the 2nd Am & the breadth of Bruen's test.
This is the case where the judges on the 5th Circuit declared that our ancestors would have considered it unthinkable to ban guns from domestic abusers--& therefore modern regulations doing so are unconstitutional. Here's my earlier threads on the case. 👇
Read 13 tweets
Feb 6
1/ There's a lot to chew on in this thoughtful post by Barnett & Lund about pitfalls of Bruen's new test, and I agree with parts of their critique.

But I want to highlight two problems I see with their proposal for a replacement 🧵

lawliberty.org/implementing-b…
2/ As Barnett & Lund note, Bruen mandates a history-only test. I have no doubt they are right about the motivations for the majority's imposition of the test, and they are surely right that Bruen itself didn't consistently apply this metric to laws it approved.
3/ I find it curious, however, that they exemplify the problems with Bruen's new test not by pointing out the surprising # of lower court ops striking down laws that had been broadly held to be const'l pre-Bruen (felon indictment, DV prohibitors, etc.), but focus on 1 upholding.
Read 17 tweets
Feb 2
Looks like we're going to get a new Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment sooner rather than later because this new Fifth Circuit ruling strikes down the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by those subject to DV restraining orders.

assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicy…
Only one other court of appeals has issued a published decision on the 2nd Am post-Bruen, and that decision was vacated when the court took it en banc. This one will likely have broad impact.
The Court's discussion about how to understand who's protected as part of "the people" is an interesting one.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(