Podcast appearances and mentions of nelson lund

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking on the button below. Thanks!Because I was busy welcoming our baby boy into the world, I was unable to procure an outside guest for this week's podcast. This gave me the opportunity to do something I've been wanting to do since the show began: argue with my husband (and not about how to load the dishwasher, which he always gets wrong).My guest this week is my Dear Husband, Zachary Baron Shemtob. Zach is an academic turned lawyer who has written extensively, for both scholarly publications and the popular press, about the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary, and legal theory. He has provocative opinions and unorthodox proposals about these topics, and whether or not you agree with his views—and in this podcast, I mostly disagree—they're certainly worth some thought. (As a former academic, Zach could probably write a law-review article about each of his ideas, so this 40-minute podcast can't do them justice.)In this episode, Zach and I discuss “judicial celebrity,” the practice of treating judges like celebs (which Zach finds problematic, even if he would readily admit that it's not the greatest threat to civilization); his plan to Make SCOTUS Great Again, which involves making the Court bigger and more boring; a potpourri of jurisprudential issues, including originalism, Chevron deference, and the major-questions doctrine; and, finally, movies—including but not limited to My Cousin Vinny and Everything Everywhere All at Once.If you want more confrontation in this podcast and appreciate some good verbal sparring, then this episode is for you. Please let us know your thoughts on this different format, in the comments or by email; if this episode is popular, perhaps I'll ask Zach to join me again, whether as a guest or a co-host. Enjoy!Show Notes:* Judicial Duty and the Supreme Court's Cult of Celebrity, by Craig Lerner and Nelson Lund for the George Washington Law Review* Our Kardashian Court (and How to Fix It), by Suzanna Sherry for the Iowa Law Review* Celebrity Justice: Supreme Court Edition, by Rick Hasen for the Green Bag* Reflections on Judging, by Richard A. Posner* The Supreme Court Doesn't Need 9 Justices. It Needs 27, by Jacob Hale Russell for Time* Testimony Before the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, by Akhil Reed AmarPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.

QUESTION PRESENTED:This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important jurisdictional qNew York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), and in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that this right “is fully applicable to the States,” 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010). For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it is squarely presented by this petition, in which the Second Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a New York regime that prohibits law-abiding individuals from carrying a handgun unless they first demonstrate some form of “proper cause” that distinguishes them from the body of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The time has come for this Court to resolve this critical constitutional impasse and reaffirm the citizens' fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense. The question presented is: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary lawabiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self- defense.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Dec 17 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 22, 2021)Dec 23 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al.Jan 08 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 22, 2021 to February 22, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Jan 11 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 22, 2021.Jan 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation filed.Jan 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Korte Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Korte Tree Care filed.Jan 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of State of Missouri.et al. filed.Jan 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups filed.Feb 12 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Neal Goldfarb filed. (Brief corrected 3/1/21)Feb 22 2021 | Brief of respondents Keith M. Corlett, et al. in opposition filed.Mar 10 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.Mar 10 2021 | Reply of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 29 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.Apr 12 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.Apr 19 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/23/2021.Apr 26 2021 | Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.May 07 2021 | Motion for an extension of time file the briefs on the merits filed.May 11 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 2, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 23, 2021.May 27 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al.Jun 16 2021 | Motion for an further extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jun 25 2021 | Motion to further extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 13, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including September 14, 2021.Jul 09 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty filed.Jul 13 2021 | Brief of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed.Jul 13 2021 | Joint appendix filed.Jul 13 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Professors of Second Amendment Law, et al. filed.Jul 14 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.Jul 14 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Bay Colony Weapons Collectors, Inc. filed.Jul 15 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. filed.Jul 15 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Italo-American Jurists and Attorneys filed.Jul 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of National African American Gun Association, Inc. filed.Jul 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep and Bear Arms filed.Jul 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of George K. Young Jr. filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Representative Claudia Tenney and 175 Additional Members of the U.S. House of Representatives filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The DC Project Foundation; Operation Blazing Sword—Pink Pistols; Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership filed.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Patrick J. Charles in support of neither party filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of J. Joel Alicea filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Constitutional Rights Union filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Independent Institute filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of State of Arizona, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Governor of Texas filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Law Enforcement Groups and State and Local Firearms Rights Groups filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Liberal Gun Club and Commonwealth Second Amendment filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Heller Foundation filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of William English, Ph.D. and The Center for Human Liberty filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Second Amendment Foundation, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Lambert Henry, Russell Davenport, and Peter Fusco filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The League for Sportsmen, Law Enforcement and Defense filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United States Senator Ted Cruz, and 24 Other U.S. Senators filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Foundation for Gun Rights and National Association for Gun Rights filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Black Guns Matter, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Robert Leider and Nelson Lund, and the Buckeye Firearms Association filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of FPC American Victory Fund, et al. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Madison Society Foundation, Inc. filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Goldwater Institute filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Firearms Policy Coalition and Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Independent Women's Law Center filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of California Gun Rights Foundation filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Second Amendment Law Professors in support of neither party filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Crime Prevention Research Center filed.Aug 16 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, November 3, 2021.Sep 01 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.Sep 01 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit has been electronically filed.Sep 01 2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. Northern District of New York has been electronically filed.Sep 13 2021 | Brief amici curiae of J. Michael Luttig, et al. filed.Sep 14 2021 | Brief of Kevin P. Bruen, et al. not accepted for filing. (September 15, 2021)Sep 14 2021 | Brief of respondents Kevin P. Bruen, et al. filed.Sep 14 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Neal Goldfarb filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of League of Women Voters filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Amnesty International USA, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | CIRCULATEDSep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Everytown for Gun Safety filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Violence Policy Center filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former Major City Police Chiefs filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Americans Against Gun Violence filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United States Senators Charles E. Schumer, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. and National Urban League filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of City of New York filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Medical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Professors of History and Law filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of New York County Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former National Security Officials filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of March For Our Lives Action Fund filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Brady filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of City of Chicago and Eleven Other Cities filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Citizens Crime Commission of New York City filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Members of the Business Community filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Partnership for New York City filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of John Elson filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Amicus brief of The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and 35 Other Organizations not accepted for filing. (September 29, 2021 - Corrected version submitted).Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and 35 Other Organizations filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Social Scientists and Public Health Researchers in Support of Respondents filed. (Distributed)Sep 21 2021 | Amicus brief of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence not accepted for filing. (Compliant PDF version submitted October 25, 2021)Sep 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence filed. (Distributed)Sep 23 2021 | Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by Criminal Legal Scholars.Oct 12 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Oct 12 2021 | Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by Criminal Legal Scholars GRANTED.Oct 14 2021 | Reply of petitioners New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 18 2021 | The time for oral argument is allotted as follows: 35 minutes for petitioners, 20 minutes for respondents, and 15 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General.Nov 03 2021 | Argued. For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, New York, N. Y.; and Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

For the 200th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, AEI's Program on American Citizenship commissioned six distinguished scholars to author essays related to that decision. Gary Schmitt, the editor of the volume, provides an introduction with his essay, “John Marshall and the Politics of McCulloch v. Maryland.” Nelson Lund of […] The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/mcculloch-v-maryland-at-200/ (McCulloch v Maryland at 200) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel covered "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Cases".Stare decisis is generally regarded as a stronger force when applied to statutes than it is in constitutional law. The standard rationale is that it is much easier for the legislature to overrule statutory precedents than it is for the people to overrule constitutional precedents. But stare decisis has never been an absolute rule in either context. Has the Supreme Court been excessively reluctant to reconsider high-profile precedents that clearly misinterpreted the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar statutes?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayMr. William S. Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law SchoolProf. Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel covered "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Cases".Stare decisis is generally regarded as a stronger force when applied to statutes than it is in constitutional law. The standard rationale is that it is much easier for the legislature to overrule statutory precedents than it is for the people to overrule constitutional precedents. But stare decisis has never been an absolute rule in either context. Has the Supreme Court been excessively reluctant to reconsider high-profile precedents that clearly misinterpreted the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar statutes?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayMr. William S. Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law SchoolProf. Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

This year marks the tenth anniversary of Heller v. District of Columbia. Before Heller, courts had split on whether the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms or if that right was limited only to those citizens participating in organized militias. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, held that the Second Amendment recognized a right of individuals to keep and bear arms for private self-defense. In the wake of Heller, most lower courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to state and federal gun control laws. The decision, however, left many questions unanswered concerning the scope of the Second Amendment.In this Telefoum, Professors Nelson Lund and Darrell Miller will debate the original meaning of the Second Amendment, whether Heller was correctly decided, whether lower courts are faithfully applying Heller, and how Heller might apply to future legislation regarding the right to keep and bear arms.Featuring:Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Prof. Darrel Miller, Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Moderator: Dr. Robert Leider, Associate, Arnold & Porter DC, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of Heller v. District of Columbia. Before Heller, courts had split on whether the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms or if that right was limited only to those citizens participating in organized militias. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, held that the Second Amendment recognized a right of individuals to keep and bear arms for private self-defense. In the wake of Heller, most lower courts have rejected Second Amendment challenges to state and federal gun control laws. The decision, however, left many questions unanswered concerning the scope of the Second Amendment.In this Telefoum, Professors Nelson Lund and Darrell Miller will debate the original meaning of the Second Amendment, whether Heller was correctly decided, whether lower courts are faithfully applying Heller, and how Heller might apply to future legislation regarding the right to keep and bear arms.Featuring:Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Prof. Darrel Miller, Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law Moderator: Dr. Robert Leider, Associate, Arnold & Porter DC, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Today, Briefly dives into the late Justice Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, a case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear firearms unrelated to military service. The case has attracted attention from scholars and lawyers for the method of originalism Justice Scalia used in the decision. We’ve talked to Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato institute and lead lawyer for the plaintiff in Heller, Saul Cornell, Chair in American History at Fordham University, Nelson Lund, Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, and Professors Alison LaCroix and Jason Merchant of the University of Chicago. Professors LaCroix and Merchant are working on a project called “Historical Semantics and Legal Interpretation,” which aims to give judges and legal scholars the tools to understand how language was used in the past. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Sef Schaffel, David Sandefer, Megan Coggeshall, Jeremy Rozansky, and Chris Walling. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to Noel Ottman, and the V85 Online Group.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas tragedy, renewed attention has come to controversy over the constitutional status of guns in the United States and the role of the Second Amendment. Joining National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss this central question are two of the leading scholars on this subject. Saul Cornell is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University. Nelson Lund is University Professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School. Note to listeners: Take the Panoply user survey at survey.panoply.fm.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas tragedy, renewed attention has come to controversy over the constitutional status of guns in the United States and the role of the Second Amendment. Joining National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss this central question are two of the leading scholars on this subject. Saul Cornell is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University. Nelson Lund is University Professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School. Note to listeners: Take the Panoply user survey at survey.panoply.fm.

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized for the first time in our history that individual Americans have a right to gun ownership. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller is widely regarded as a signal success for his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. This panel will assess Heller's contribution to the law. How originalist was the opinion? Have the lower courts been faithful in applying Heller to issues outside its narrow holding? Is the Court likely to read Heller broadly or narrowly in the future? -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Noel J. Francisco, Partner, Jones Day; Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Prof. Michael O'Shea, Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University School of Law; and Prof. Allan Rostron, University of Missouri - Kansas City Law School. Moderator: Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law.

On March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Caetano v. Massachusetts without oral argument. -- Jamie Caetano was convicted of violating a Massachusetts law prohibiting possession of stun guns. On appeal, she claimed this law violated the Second Amendment, by infringing her right to possess a stun gun in public for the purpose of self-defense from an abusive ex-boyfriend. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed Caetano’s conviction, ruling that stun guns are not eligible for Second Amendment protection. -- By a vote of 8-0, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion vacating the judgment of the Massachusetts court and remanding the case. Citing its 2008 precedent District of Columbia v. Heller, and its 2010 precedent McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Massachusetts court’s decision as contradictory of Supreme Court precedent. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Nelson Lund, who is University Professor at George Mason University School of Law.

Adam Winkler of the UCLA School of Law and Nelson Lund of the George Mason University School of Law examine the history of the Second Amendment and the current debates about the extent of its protections.

Adam Winkler of the UCLA School of Law and Nelson Lund of the George Mason University School of Law examine the history of the Second Amendment and the current debates about the extent of its protections.

Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America? tells the story of the six-year courtroom battle that culminated in the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, invalidating a law banning handgun possession in Washington, DC. In the book, author Adam Winkler gives a historical overview of the battle between gun rights and gun control advocates, and brings to light what he argues are the often misunderstood legal and historical issues central to history of guns in America. -- Winkler, a Professor at the UCLA School of Law, is joined by Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law, to discuss the book.

March 2011 featuring Christopher A. Preble, Benjamin H. Friedman, David N. Mayer, Nelson Lund, Nicholas Phillipson, Peje Emilsson, Sen. Ron Wyden See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.