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
1,111 posts
5,482 followers
1,961 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Thanks for posting this - just got the kindle version!
comment in response to
post
We need democratic accountability for all policy choices
comment in response to
post
Bro, don’t even go there
comment in response to
post
That’s a good point - the court does rely on a quite modern version of the law
comment in response to
post
Feels like this needs a *
* according to the Supreme Court
comment in response to
post
ruling is perplexing to me. As I read it, it purports to stand independent (or at least not merely derivative) of the ultra vires statutory claim, but I don’t see how the 10A claim could prevail if the statute is properly invoked, so in that sense it seems to me like it can’t do independent work.
comment in response to
post
blocks don’t constituted being “armed” for purposes of rebellion), (c) there is no complete inability to execute the laws (though I’m not sure the statute is best read to mean *compete* inability), & (d) that the equities & public interest weigh strongly in favor of relief. The 10th amendment
comment in response to
post
I would think (hope?) it would be easier for the National Guard leadership to defer to a judicial ruling about which orders it should lawfully follow.
comment in response to
post
That’s probably the better practical outcome but it would be weird in any other setting to say that someone improperly commandeered your subordinate but you will still relinquish your authority to give that person orders temporarily
comment in response to
post
Seriously! Can’t really imagine it getting more on the nose!
comment in response to
post
No! It excludes most arguments that lax gun laws decrease crime too!
comment in response to
post
In the way it’s framed there? That a law contributes to mass incarceration and resulting racial inequities? Yeah I don’t think Bruen lets that come in.
comment in response to
post
Seriously - radicalizing Newsom is like a defcon 1 situation.
comment in response to
post
Thank you 🙏
comment in response to
post
Egregious
comment in response to
post
That sounds great
comment in response to
post
I too am a dog person but don’t get that either unfortunately
comment in response to
post
I think that’s a great way to do it - have an old iPhone that’s been in a drawer for a while that I’m considering doing this with.
comment in response to
post
Sadly, no. I must be following the wrong people.
comment in response to
post
Wow taking public transit solo shows a lot of responsibility- so that makes sense!
comment in response to
post
I have not heard of this debate! But that is not at all surprising (tho, tbf, we try to outcast the one dad in our group chat w an android bc it’s messes up the chat).
comment in response to
post
Seriously - we are trying to hold off as long as we can, but when we do get them a phone, they sure ain’t getting the iPhone 16 pro max or whatever is then the latest
comment in response to
post
I should say, though, that I’m not enough of a nerd to be reading Thoreau on this beautiful Friday night. (Instead, it comes to me as quoted in Carl Becker’s Declaration of Independence, which, obviously, is a cool thing to read on Friday evenings.)