Search for: "W Bruening"
Results 21 - 40
of 68
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Oct 2022, 7:57 am
W. [read post]
28 Nov 2022, 6:30 am
” I suspect that Sandy regards Bruen as even more shambolic. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 1:42 pm
Bruen, which stated: [W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct…[T]he government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. [read post]
14 Nov 2022, 8:00 am
District Court Judge Robert W. [read post]
2 Dec 2022, 6:30 am
W. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 9:28 am
Bruen, which held that “[w]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 4:54 pm
Bruen (2022). [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 4:04 pm
Bruen. [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 9:30 pm
Steven Lubet on the Supreme Court's "bad history” in Bruen (The Hill). [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 2:24 pm
Thompson, John W. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 3:01 am
District Kea W. [read post]
14 Dec 2022, 7:46 am
For a detailed analysis of the above controversy, see Mark W. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 7:01 pm
As Professor Mark W. [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 7:42 am
Gerry W. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 7:18 pm
We have refuted this argument previously, and it is soundly put to rest in a comprehensive law review article by Mark W. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 9:41 am
Bruen (2022), it is not. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 4:35 pm
Bruen (2022), it is not. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 12:05 pm
That argument conflates Bruen's two distinct analytical steps. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 8:59 am
The title of his presentation was “Litigating under Bruen. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 4:00 am
"The majority in Bruen repeatedly claims that its decision is based on text and history but of course it is not. [read post]
