Profile avatar
jacobdcharles.bsky.social
Law prof, Pepperdine Law; Affiliated Scholar, Duke Center for Firearms Law. I write about constitutional law, especially the Second Amendment. Bio: https://t.co/yVUcs14NoK Papers: http://bit.ly/3HleQND
675 posts 4,858 followers 1,819 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
Posts 24 Comments 26

Ah the 2nd Am advocates for unlawful possession of grenades & short barrel rifles. Good place we’re in. Perfect illustration of Alice Ristroph’s thesis that the good guy w a gun isn’t nec. law-abiding—it’s a naturalized, pre-political concept. scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcont...

submitted 2 days ago • 2 comments

Combine this with the fact that the last time a democratic president appointed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was 1946 (ok, ok Warren is cheating but that’s still 1954!) & you begin to wonder if the concern about targeting conservatives is on the up & up.

submitted 2 days ago • 1 comment

This letter is so rich coming from a guy & administration that facilitated dismissing charges against the January 6 rioters who *literally* did bring *real* “actual weapons” to what they claimed was an “actual fight for democracy”

submitted 2 days ago • 1 comment

Great @andrewwillinger.bsky.social post on what impact this administration might have on gun-related challenges. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ firearmslaw.duke.edu/2025/02/will...

submitted 4 days ago • 0 comments

I prob shouldn't have bc @evanbernick.bsky.social @anthonymkreis.bsky.social and @paulgowder.bsky.social have covered the topic so well but I thought the mostly forgotten right of expatriation was relevant-and to date absent-from the convo @lawfare.bsky.social www.lawfaremedia.org/article/birt...

submitted 5 days ago • 4 comments

Was great to be part of SMU Law Review's Second Amendment symposium last fall. Up now on SSRN is a draft of my symposium essay. In the piece, I try to make sense of Rahimi's reliance on Salerno's facial test & highlight how the Court ignored the other Salerno test. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

submitted 4 days ago • 2 comments

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the 14th amendment, but I think I’ve gotten okay at reading Supreme Court opinions & man do Barnett & Wurman have to narrowly confine Wong Kim Ark to its specific holding & cut out basically all of its reasoning & justification to get to their end point.

submitted 7 days ago • 0 comments

My critique of the Randy Barnett/Ilan Wurman constitutional rationale for Trump's order on birthright citizenship: reason.com/volokh/2025/...

submitted 7 days ago • 28 comments

Okay wow. “If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.”

submitted 9 days ago • 0 comments

Have a really hard time seeing how anyone could read the two letters—Sassoon’s initial one & Bove’s response—& come away thinking anything other than that the response only further confirms the *precise* issues raised in the initial letter about partisan favoritism & rule-bending for the powerful

submitted 9 days ago • 2 comments

I don’t agree with all that many of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson’s substantive views, but I gotta say that from my interactions with his clerks, he does a dang good job either selecting for or instilling a real sense of what it means to be a principled lawyer.

submitted 9 days ago • 0 comments

“Unfortunately, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and the Republican party of Trump is not like the Republican party of Nixon: if there is a limit to the illegality they are willing to put up with from Trump, we have not yet seen it.” www.liberalcurrents.com/is-it-a-coup/

submitted 9 days ago • 1 comment

NEW: 3rd Cir panel clarifies its standard for as-applied Second Amendment challenges to the felon-in-possession prohibition as it remands an illegal gambler's claim. It also further deepens a split in how even those circuits that recognize such claims assess them. cases.justia.com/federal/appe...

submitted 11 days ago • 1 comment

NEW: 3rd Cir panel clarifies its standard for as-applied Second Amendment challenges to the felon-in-possession prohibition as it remands an illegal gambler's claim. It also further deepens a split in how even those circuits that recognize such claims assess them. cases.justia.com/federal/appe...

submitted 11 days ago • 1 comment

Today's episode of The Daily on "The Demise of USAID" did not mention one single time that what Trump is doing is illegal. Not even one mealy-mouthed suggestion that this appears to contradict statutes enacted by Congress. A good policy discussion, but leaves the impression that's all this is.

submitted 12 days ago • 2 comments

It’s Switch in Time class tomorrow in con law! Strange to think that at one time in the distant past politics might have played a role in how justices decided cases.

submitted 12 days ago • 1 comment

This administration sure is bringing new meaning to the phrase "execute the laws"

submitted 12 days ago • 0 comments

The 5th Circuit upholds federal silencer ban because "Because suppressors do not trigger Second Amendment protection" www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...

submitted 15 days ago • 1 comment

@spitzerb.bsky.social critiques courts' historical missteps in #SecondAmendment rulings. His latest article dissects how age-based gun restrictions were historically understood & why Bruen's history-only standard is flawed. Read more: thehill.com/opinion/judi...

submitted 15 days ago • 1 comment

Oh boy. New article arguing for the proposition in its title: "Bruen Was Right." I couldn't disagree more with its thrust, which I suppose is unsurprising given the article says that I (& others) have simply misunderstood Bruen. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

submitted 16 days ago • 0 comments

Justice Breyer's recent article in Harvard L Rev has some nice criticism of Bruen, incl. how it generated the very confusion he predicted (& that we highlighted in an amicus we filed in Rahimi). He also frames Rahimi as modifying, not just clarifying, the test. harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...

submitted 17 days ago • 0 comments

A big question. In some ways, though, a court-appointed lawyer defending the law might give it a better defense than a hostile administration.

submitted 19 days ago • 0 comments

"Can the President do...? No, not lawfully." Helpful piece. & I sense that's going to be the answer to a lot of questions the next few years. Both parts are crucial. As a matter of sheer will & armed force, the president *can* do a lot. It's impt not to ignore the second part. shorturl.at/bixTg

submitted 20 days ago • 0 comments

Self-defense machine guns on every porch, just as Madison intended.

submitted 20 days ago • 0 comments