Briefs and Citations of Kopel

Briefs: Supreme Court. Other Federal. State.

Citations: State courts. Federal courts.

Case citation totals: U.S. Supreme Court 7. U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals 33. U.S. District Courts 45. State courts 33.

For information on the Colorado Sheriffs' lawsuit against the 2013 gun control laws, click here.

Latest briefs

Newsom v. B and L Productions, No 23-3793 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2024). Amicus brief of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Independence Institute. There is no historical support for the California legislature's ban on all gun shows on government property.

Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 (U.S. Sup. Ct., Jan. 26, 2024). Amicus brief of Senators Cynthia M. Lummis (Wyoming), Mike Lee (Utah), Kevin Cramer (North Dakota), John Barrasso (Wyoming), Pete Ricketts (Nebraska), Steve Daines (Montana), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Mississippi), Mike Rounds (South Dakota), Markwayne Mullin (Oklahoma); Professors Royce de R. Barondes (Missouri, emeritus), F. Lee Francis (Mississippi College School of Law), Nicholas J. Johnson (Fordham), Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr. (Lincoln Law School), Joyce Malcolm (George Mason, emerita), Joseph V. Muha (Akron), Joseph E. Olson (Mitchell-Hamline, emeritus), David A. Raney (Hillsdale), Glenn H. Reynolds (Tennessee), E. Gregory Wallace (Campbell); and the Independence Institute. In judicial review of the BATFE's regulation outlawing bump stocks, Chevron deference should not be applied. The rule of lenity does apply, and the standard with the strongest basis in American legal tradition is reasonable doubt. The National Firearms Act does not outlaw all "rapid-fire" guns; to the contrary, BATFE has repeatedly affirmed that Gatling guns are not covered by the NFA. The Court should apply the actual text of the NFA ("single function of the trigger"), and not BATFE's regulatory substitute ("single pull").

NRA v. Vullo, No. 22-842 (U.S. Sup. Ct., Jan. 16, 2024). Amicus brief of Second Amendment Foundation, John Locke Foundation, and Independence Institute. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the N.Y. Dept. of Financial Services sent written threats to banks and insurance companies warning them not to do business with the NRA. The effort to destroy and silence a constitutional advocacy organization was similar to the actions of segregationist state governments against the NAACP in the 1950s and 1960s. Cuomo has a long record of abusive attempts to eliminate First and Second Amendment rights. The Obama administration similarly abused tax and bank laws to try to choke off the First and Second Amendments. The Court should adhere to its precedents and hold unlawful Cuomo's threat-laundering.

Gates v. Polis, No. 22-cv-1866-GPG-SKC (D. Colo., Nov. 30, 2023). Amicus brief of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, the Western States Sheriffs Association, Sheriffs John Feyen (Larimer County), Gene Lillard (Montrose), Brett Powell (Logan), Todd Rowell (Mesa), Steve Reams (Weld), Aaron Shiplett (Baca), Lou Vallario (Garfield), Sam Zordel (Prowers), and the Independence Institute. Colorado ban on magazines over 15 rounds endangers public safety. Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief.

United States v. Rahimi. No. 22-915 (U.S. Sup. Ct., Oct. 4, 2023). Amicus brief on behalf of professors Randy Barnett, Robert Cottrol, Lee Francis, Donald Kilmer, Joyce Malcolm, George Mocsary, Joseph Muha, Joseph Olson, Glenn Reynolds, and Gregory Wallace; the Second Amendment Law Center; and the Independence Institute. Old and discriminatory gun control laws that were repudiated by subsequent constitutional enactments are not valid precedents to support modern gun controls. Restricting arms rights of individuals whom a court has found to be "a credible threat" to intimate partners does not infringe the Second Amendment; disarming people with no judicial findings at all does infringe the Second Amendment. Thus, 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(8)(C)(i) is not an infringement, and (C)(ii) is an infringement.

Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, Nos. No. 23-1633, 23-1634, 23-1641 (3d Cir. July 10, 2023). Amicus brief of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, National Association of Chiefs of Police, Professors of Second Amendment Law, and Independence Institute. Assertions about the supposedly "exceptional" wounding power and dangers of so-called "assault weapons" are false. The arms are well-suited for law-defense of self and others, and are frequently chosen for that purpose by law enforcement officers and citizens. Claims that ordinary law enforcement officers routinely use extremely dangerous super-powerful weapons are defamatory to law enforcement.

National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Platkin, 80 F4th 215 (3d Cir. 2023). Amicus brief. New Jersey statute to allow lawsuits against law-abiding firearms businesses violates the Second Amendment, and is similar to abusive First Amendment lawsuits from the Jim Crow period.

Gonzales v. Google, 598 U.S. 617 (2023). Supreme Court merits amicus brief of Center for Growth and Opportunity, Independence Institute, and other think tanks. The text of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not authorize legal liability for the content of targeted content selected by an algorithm.

Latest citations

U.S. Supreme Court

New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2133 (2022). Majority opinion by Justice Thomas cites The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018). With Joseph G.S. Greenlee. Brief cited in Baird v. Bonta, No. 2:19-cv-00617, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2023 WL 9050959 *19 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2023).

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 140 S.Ct. 2246, 2268, 2270 (2020) (Alito, J., concurring) (citing Independence Inst. amicus brief, and scholarship of Ind. Inst.'s prof. Rob Natelson).

Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S.Ct. 2316, 2325-26 (2020) (majority opinion by Justice Kagan). "The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words ["vote," "ballot," "electors"] expected the Electors’ votes to reflect their own judgments. See Brief for Petitioners 18–19; Brief for Independence Institute as Amicus Curiae 11–15. . . . But even assuming other Framers shared that outlook, it would not be enough."]

Rogers v. Grewal, 140 S.Ct. 1865, 1870 n. 3 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (Regarding an advocate's claim about Sir John Knight's Case from England in 1686: "This assertion has been repudiated by subsequent scholarship. See Kopel, The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation, 14 Geo. J. L.& Pub. Pol’y 127, 135, n. 46 (2016)."

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, 140 S.Ct. 1525, 1527 n. 1, 1541 (2020) (Justice Alito dissenting, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas). "[T]he law was upheld based on what we are told is the framework for reviewing Second Amendment claims that has been uniformly adopted by the Courts of Appeals. See Brief for Second Amendment Law Professors et al. as Amici Curiae 8-9.” “It is true that a lawful gun owner can sometimes practice at a range using a gun that is owned by and rented at the range. But the same model gun that the person owns may not be available at a range, and in any event each individual gun may have its own characteristics. See Brief for Professors of Second Amendment Law et al. as Amici Curiae 10-12." Professors brief.

Lower federal courts

United States v. Ayala, No. 8:22-cr-369-KKM-AAS, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2024 WL 132624 *6-7, 12 ( M.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2024). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 213-15, 229-36, 244-47 (2018).

United States v. Metcalf, No. CR 23-103-BLG-SPW, 2024 WL 358154 *7-8 (D. Mont., Jan. 31, 2024). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 246, 250 (2018).

Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, No. 21-1832, -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 189453 *15-16, 16 n.5, 18 (3d Cir., Jan. 18, 2024) (Restrepo, J., dissenting). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 177-88, 242-54; The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 Journal of Legislation ms. at 192-93 (Notre Dame, forthcoming 2024).

Baird v. Bonta, 2023 WL 9050959, *9 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2023). Mentioning How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution, 6 Charleston Law Review 283 (2012).

May v. Bonta, 2023 WL 8946212, *5, 6, 9, 11 n.8, 14 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 211, 233 n. 108, 234, 235-36, 242, 250, 289, 290-91, 292, (2018).

Antonyuk v. Chiumento, 2023 WL 8518003, *14, 27 (2d. Cir., Dec. 8, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 229-36, 244-47 (2018); Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Laws, 63 Tennessee Law Review 679, 680, 681 (1995).

Miller v. Bonta, 2023 WL 6929336, *13 n.86, 19 n.107, 21 n.121, 23 n.133, 25 n. 153, 32 n.203 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023). Holding California "assault weapon" ban unconstitutional. Slip opinion citations: 27 n.86, 38 n.107, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 Journal of Legislation at 45-46, 60 (Notre Dame, forthcoming 2024); 41-42 n.121, 66 n.203, State court standards of review for the right to arms, 50 Santa Clara Law Review 1113, 1145 n.51 (2010); 45 n.133, The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 240 (2018); 50 n.152 Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167, 168 (2013).

Duncan v. Bonta, 83 F.4th 803, 814, 818 n. 6 (9th Cir 2023) (Bumatay, J., dissenting). Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849, 851 (2015); Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167, 180 (2013).

Duncan v. Bonta, 2023 WL 6180472, *2 n.15, 16 n.121, 24 n.177, 32 n.215, n216, 33 n.218 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2023). Holding magazine ban unconstitutional. Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849, 874 (2015); The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 Journal of Legislation (Notre Dame, forthcoming 2024); Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167, 168 (2013).

United States v. Jackson, 85 F.4th 468, 471 (8th Cir. 2023) (Stras, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 90-91, 115-16, 240.

United States v. Davila, 2023 WL 5361799, *3 (S.D.N.Y, Aug. 22, 2023). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 174.

United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 n.29 (5th Cir. 2023). Amicus brief cited and quoted in the court's opinion. Amicus brief by Scholars of Second Amendment Law (F. Lee Francis, Nicholas J. Johnson, Donald E.J. Kilmer, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary Joseph V. Muha, Joseph E. Olson, Glenn H. Reynolds) and Independence Institute. The ban on firearms possession by every "user" of marijuana, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), is contrary to history and tradition, as shown by historic laws pertaining to alcohol. Shooting or wearing firearms while intoxicated may be prohibited, but not use while sober.

Teter v. Lopez, 276 F.4th 938, 951 n.11 (9th Cir. 2023). Hawaii ban on butterfly knives is unconstitutional. Citing Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167, 180-81 (2013).

United States v. Pineda-Guevara, No. 5:23-CR-2-DCB-LGI, 2023 WL 4943609, *4 n.5 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 2, 2023). Rejecting challenge to 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(5), which bars firearms possession by unlawful aliens. Citing The Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults, 43 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 495, 533-96 (2019).

Maryland Shall Issue v. Montgomery County, Maryland, No. TDC-21-1736, 2023 WL 4373260 *15-16 (D. Md. July 6, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018). Upholding licensed carry ban in various locations.

Goldstein v. Hochul, 2023 WL 4236164, *11 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018). Upholding ban on licensed carry in churches, synagogues, and other religious buildings.

Range v. Attorney General United States of America, 69 F.4th 96, 122 n.51, 124 n.66, 68-71, 125 n.86 (3rd Cir. 2023) (en banc) (Krause, J., dissenting). Citing Nicholas J. Johnson et al., Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy 174, 197, 198, 301 (3d ed. 2022). Majority allows as-applied exception to 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(1).

State and territorial Courts

Commonwealth v. Isert, No. 2381CR00217, 2023 WL 9000025 (Superior Ct. Mass., Dec. 26, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

State v. Ford, No. No. 23-718 (La. App. 3d Cir., Dec. 13, 2013). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Taylor v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0427-22-2 (Va. App. Aug. 1, 2023). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment.

Wade v. University of Michigan, 2023 WL 4670440, slip op. at 8 (Mich. App. July 20, 2023). Upholding University of Michigan gun ban. Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Amicus Briefs

United States Supreme Court

Arms law

United States v. Rahimi. No. 22-915 (U.S. Sup. Ct., Oct. 4, 2023). Amicus brief on behalf of professors Randy Barnett, Robert Cottrol, Lee Francis, Donald Kilmer, Joyce Malcolm, George Mocsary, Joseph Muha, Joseph Olson, Glenn Reynolds, and Gregory Wallace; the Second Amendment Law Center; and the Independence Institute. Old and discriminatory gun control laws that were repudiated by subsequent constitutional enactments are not valid precedents to support modern gun controls. Restricting arms rights of individuals whom a court has found to be "a credible threat" to intimate partners does not infringe the Second Amendment; disarming people with no judicial findings at all does infringe the Second Amendment. Thus, 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(8)(C)(i) is not an infringement, and (C)(ii) is an infringement.

Duncan v. Bonta. No. 21-1194. U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief in support of cert. petition. Lower federal courts have refused to apply the Supreme Court's "common use" test for protected arms, and have invented substitute tests to uphold arms bans. Mar. 31, 2022.

Bianchi v. Frosh. No. 21-902. Cert. petition amicus brief for Professors of Second Amendment Law, Cato Institute, John Locke Foundation, Center to Keep and Bear Arms, and Independence Institute. Maryland's ban on semiautomatic rifles violates the Second Amendment, and lower court cases upholding rifle bans are illogical. Feb. 11, 2022.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. No. 20-843. Amicus brief of Professors of Second Amendment Law, Weld County, Colorado, Weld Sheriff Steve Reams, Independence Institute, and Firearms Policy Foundation. July 14, 2021.

Folajtar v. Rosen. No 20-812. Cert. petition amicus brief of Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation, and Independence Institute. (Jan. 14, 2021). Lisa Folajtar pled guilty to cheating on her taxes in 2011, and served three years probation. She has been law-abiding ever since, and has never been dangerous. She should not lose the right to arms for the rest of her life.

Holloway v. Rosen. No. 20-782. Cert. petition amicus brief of Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation, Independence Institute, and Mountain States Legal Foundation Center to Keep and Bear Arms (Jan. 7, 2021). The Second Amendment allows dangerous people to be disarmed, but not disarmament of a person who is said to lack "virtue."

Zoie H. v. State of Nebraska. No 19-1418. July 24, 2020. Cert. petition amicus brief of Professors of Second Amendment law, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and Independence Institute. Can an adult be prohibited from exercising the right to arms based on a juvenile conviction for which a jury trial was not allowed? The amicus brief discusses the history and tradition of arms rights for young adults.

Worman v. Healey. No. 19-404. Oct. 24, 2019. Cert. petition. Amicus brief of Cato Institute, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms, Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, Madison Society Foundation, and Independence Institute.

Remington v. Soto. No. 19-168. Sept. 4, 2019. Amicus brief of Professors of Second Amendment law, Cato Institute, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Madison Foundation, and Independence Institute. Appendix of professor biographies.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City. No. 28-280. May 14, 2019. Amicus brief for Professors of Second Amendment law, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Millennial Policy Center, and Independence Institute. Appendix of professor biographies. The Second Circuit upheld New York City's ban on licensed handgun owners taking their handguns out of the City. The ban is contrary to good practices for safety training. The doctrinal errors found in the Second Circuit decision are prevalent in other circuits, demonstrating the need for further guidance from the Supreme Court.

Pena v. Horan. Cert. petition. No. 18-843. Feb. 1, 2019. Amicus brief for Second Amendment law professors, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Independence Institute, and Millennial Policy Center. California's "microstamping" mandate creates a de facto ban on all new models of semiautomatic pistols. The Ninth Circuit opinion upholding the ban was based on speculation and refusal to consider the plaintiffs' evidence.

Mance v. Whitaker. Cert. petition. No. 18-663. Dec. 20, 2018. Amicus brief for Second Amendment law professors, Independence Institute, and Millennial Policy Center. Challenge to federal ban on interstate handgun sales between consenting states. Argues that Court should take the case to explicate the proper test for Second Amendment challenges, due to conflicts in the lower courts, and nullification of the Second Amendment in some courts.

Teixeira v. Alameda County. Cert. petition. No 17-982. Feb. 9, 2018. Amicus brief on behalf of Cato Institute, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Independence Institute, and Millennial Policy Center. County's ban on all new gun stores violates the Second Amendment. The brief addresses circuit court doctrine, and the history of the British arms embargo on the American colonies.

Kolbe v. Hogan. Cert. petition. No. 17-127. Aug. 21, 2017. Amicus brief on behalf of National Sheriffs' Association, Cato Institute, Second Amendment Foundation, and Independence Institute. Maryland's ban on common firearms and standard magazines endangers law enforcement officers and public safety. The ban is contrary to the American tradition of arms regulation.

McDonald v. City of Chicago. 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Amicus brief for International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Congress of Racial Equality, the Claremont Institute, Professors Carlisle E. Moody, Roy T. Wortman, Raymond Kessler, Gary Mauser, Dr. Sterling Burnett, and the Independence Institute. Social science shows the benefits of arms in the hands of the law-abiding, and the harms of handgun prohibition. Cited by Justice Alito's plurality opinion (footnote 2), and by Justice Stevens' dissent (twice).

District of Columbia v. Heller. 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Amicus brief of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association Of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, Calif., Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, National Police Defense Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the Independence Institute. Guns in the right hands enhance public safety. Cited four times in Justice Breyer's opinion.

Florida v. J.L. 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Amicus brief of the National Rifle Association and the Independence Institute. There is no "gun exception" to the Fourth Amendment's ban on searches based on unverified anonymous tips.

Printz v. United States. 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Amicus brief for the States of Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming. Congress cannot order state and local officials to carry out federal checks on handgun buyers.

Other topics

Gonzales v. Google. No. 21-1333. Supreme Court merits amicus brief of Center for Growth and Opportunity, Independence Institute, and other think tanks. The text of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not authorize legal liability for the content of targeted content selected by an algorithm.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra. 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021). Merits amicus brief of public policy research organizations. First Amendment donor privacy and association rights.

Caniglia v. Strom. No. 20-157 (2021). Merits amicus brief of Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Independence Institute. Anglo-American legal history shows why the police cannot be allowed to conduct warrantless searches of homes simply because there is believed to be a firearm inside.

Thompson v. Marietta Education Association. No. 20-1019. Cert. petition amicus brief of public policy research organizations. The Court should over-rule an old precedent that has been construed to allow governments to force government employees to join a union.

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue. No. 18-1195. Sept. 18, 2019. Merits amicus brief. Many state constitutions, including Montana's, prohibit government aid to "sectarian" educational institutions. According to the original meaning, in the nineteenth century, "sectarian" did not refer to religion in general, but only to religions that were considered extreme, heretical, fanatical, or bad. Cited in 591 U.S.---, no. 18-1195, pp. 2, 6, 6 n.6 (June 30, 2020) (Alito, J., concurring) (citing Independence Inst. amicus brief, and scholarship of Ind. Inst.'s prof. Rob Natelson).

Timbs v. Indiana. No. 17-1091. Sept. 11, 2018. Merits amicus brief. The Independence Institute joins a broad civil liberties coalition in an amicus brief led by the Drug Policy Alliance. The issue is whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause should be incorporated against the States. The brief details modern abuses of forfeiture laws, and argues that no government can have a legitimate interest in imposing an "excessive" fine.

Hickenlooper v. Kerr. Cert. petition. No. 14-1460. Nov. 20, 2014. Cert. granted, judgment vacated. 135 S.Ct. 2927 (June 30, 2015). Amicus brief of Independence Institute, Cato Institute, and Reason Foundation. The Republican Form of Government Clause is not violated by Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Joel Esquenzi and Carlos Rodriguez v. United States of America. Cert. petition. No. 14-189. Sept. 11, 2014. Amicus brief of the Washington Legal Foundation and the Independence Institute. Whether a corporation can be considered an "instrumentality" of a foreign government for purposes of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Zivotofsky v. Kerry. 135 S.Ct. 2076 (2014). Amicus brief of Kopel and other professors of constitutional and international law. Precedent and practice show that Congress has the authority to designate that particular locations will be treated as part of a particular nation, for purposes such as passport issuance, tariffs, and so on. Thus, Congress had the authority to specify by statute that passports for persons born in Jerusalem, Israel, should state the place of birth was Jerusalem, Israel.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). Amicus brief of the Independence Institute. Original meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause. Professor Natelson's research presented in this brief was cited several times in the four-Justice concurring opinion written by Justice Scalia.

Bakoss v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Issuing Certificate No. 0510135. Cert. petition. No. 12-1429. July 11, 2013. Amicus brief of Independence Institute. The Federal Arbitration Act does not authorize federal courts to create federal common law about the definition of "arbitration." Contract law authority resides in the States.

Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida. 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (no. 11-398). Amicus brief of the Independence Institute and of the authors of The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Obamacare brief on the individual mandate. The individual mandate cannot be upheld under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion for the Court on this issue included the first Court citation of Chief Justice Marshall's newspaper essays explicating the meaning of McCulloch v. Maryland, which we had presented in our brief.

State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services. 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (no. 11-400). Amicus brief of the Independence Institute. Brief on the Obamacare Medicaid mandate that states must drastically expand Medicaid eligibility, or lose all federal matching funds for Medicaid. The Medicaid mandate violates the State sovereignty principles of the Constitution.

Pleau v. United States and Chafee v. United States. Cert. petitions. Nos. 12-223, 12-230. Sept. 26, 2012. Amicus brief of Cato Institute and Independence Institute. Principles of federalism forbid the federal government from using a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to obtain custody of a prisoner who is serving a sentence in state prison.

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. 551 U.S. 449 (2006). Amicus brief of Coalition of Public Charities, including Independence Institute. Federal election law blackout on mentioning the names of federal candidates in the 60 day period before an election impairs public communication on policy issues.

Federal Courts of Appeal

D.C. Circuit

Wrenn v. District of Columbia. 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Circuit. 2017). Amicus brief of legal historians. Peaceable carrying of arms was lawful in the American colonies, in the Early Republic, and in the vast majority of the United States through 1900. Cited and discussed in court's opinion striking D.C.'s excessively restrictive scheme for issuing gun carry licenses.

Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir 2011). Amicus brief of Authors of The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Gary Lawson, Robert G. Natelson & Guy Seidman) and the Independence Institute. The Obamacare individual mandate is not a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

First Circuit

Worman v. Healey. Aug. 29, 2018. Amicus brief for 11 law professors specializing in the Second Amendment, Cato Institute, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Jews for the Preservation Ownership, Independence Institute, and Millennial Policy Center. Massachusetts ban on common firearms and standard magazines violates Supreme Court precedent. Such arms have been traditional American arms since the 19th century. Cato Institute summary.

Second Circuit

Shew v. Malloy. 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015). Amicus brief for S.J. Fjestad (author of The Blue Book of Gun Values and other books on firearms history) and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. The history of magazines of greater than 10 rounds, and of magazine prohibition, in the United States.

Third Circuit

Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, Nos. No. 23-1633, 23-1634, 23-1641 (3d Cir. July 10, 2023). Amicus brief of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, National Association of Chiefs of Police, Professors of Second Amendment Law, and Independence Institute. Assertions about the supposedly "exceptional" wounding power and dangers of so-called "assault weapons" are false. The arms are well-suited for law-defense of self and others, and are frequently chosen for that purpose by law enforcement officers and citizens. Claims that ordinary law enforcement officers routinely use extremely dangerous super-powerful weapons are defamatory to law enforcement.

National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Platkin, 80 F4th 215 (3d Cir. 2023). Amicus brief. New Jersey statute to allow lawsuits against law-abiding firearms businesses violates the Second Amendment, and is similar to abusive First Amendment lawsuits from the Jim Crow period.

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey. No. 19-3142 (3d Cir. Sept. 22, 2020). Amicus brief of law professors, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Independence Institute. In support of petition for rehearing en banc, regarding N.J. magazine confiscation statute.

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Inc v. Attorney General New Jersey. Amicus brief on behalf of 7 professors of Second Amendment law, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Independence Institute.

Fourth Circuit

Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan. No. 21-2017. Fourth Circuit amicus brief. Legal history before 1900 provides no support for licensing or training mandates for keeping an arm at home. Aug. 10, 2022.

Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013). Amicus brief of the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association, International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, Prof. Clayton Cramer, and the Independence Institute. Social science re licensed carry.

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius. 656 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2011). Amicus brief on behalf of the Washington Legal Foundation and 14 law professors, including Kopel. The Obamacare individual mandate is not "proper" under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Newsom v. Albermarle. 354 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2003). Amicus brief of the Independence Institute. A middle school threatened to punish a student for wearing an NRA shooting sports camp t-shirt. The shooting sports are wholesome and promote good character. Speech promoting shooting sports cannot rationally be censored in a public school.

Maryland District Court

Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan. No. 16-cv-3311-ELH (D. Md. Oct. 5, 2018). Amicus brief of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, Professors Randy Barnett (Georgetown), Royce Barondes (Missouri), Robert Cottrol (George Washington), Nicholas Johnson (Fordham), Donald Kilmer (Lincoln), Nelson Lund (George Mason), Joyce Malcolm (George Mason), George Mocsary (Southern Illinois), Joseph Olson (Mitchell Hamline), Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), and Gregory Wallace (Campbell), Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, Millennial Policy Center, and Independence Institute. Maryland's burdensome handgun licensing system in contrary to original understanding, history, and tradition, and cannot pass heightened scrutiny.

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 n.29 (5th Cir. 2023). Amicus brief cited and quoted in the court's opinion. Amicus brief by Scholars of Second Amendment Law (F. Lee Francis, Nicholas J. Johnson, Donald E.J. Kilmer, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary Joseph V. Muha, Joseph E. Olson, Glenn H. Reynolds) and Independence Institute. The ban on firearms possession by every "user" of marijuana, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), is contrary to history and tradition, as shown by historic laws pertaining to alcohol. Shooting or weaning firearms while intoxicated may be prohibited, but not use while sober.

Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control. No. 21-40137. U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Amicus brief of Cato Institute, Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation, and Independence Institute. June 3, 2021. The federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce does not authorize a federal ban on eviction proceedings in state courts.

United States v. Emerson. 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). Amicus brief of Independence Institute. The Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Seventh Circuit

McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago. 567 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2009). Amicus brief of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Independence Institute, the Heartland Institute, Prof. David Bordua, Prof. William Tonso, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. Social science shows the harm of handgun bans.

Ninth Circuit

Newsom v. B and L Productions, No 23-3793 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2023). Amicus brief of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Independence Institute. There is no historical support for the California legislature's ban on all gun shows on government property.

Young v. Hawaii, No. 12-17808 (9th Cir. en banc 2020). Amicus brief for Professors of Second Amendment Law, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Cato Institute, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and Independence Institute. Hawaii ban on licensed open carry.

Rupp v. Becerra. No. 19-56004.2020 WL 835437. Amicus Brief of Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Independence Institute. February 3, 2020.

Teixeira v. County of Alameda. 873 F.3d 670 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Amicus brief for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the Independence Institute. County's ban on all new gun stores is invalid. The American Revolution was caused in part of British efforts to eliminate American arms commerce.

Duncan v. Becerra. 742 F. Appx. 218 (9th Cir. 2018). Amicus brief for Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, Independence Institute, and Millennial Policy Center. Urges affirmance of district court preliminary injunction against confiscation of standard capacity magazines. Addresses standard of review, and empirical evidence.

Peruta v. San Diego. 824 F.3d 919. (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Amicus brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association. Explains the empirical evidence showing that licensed handgun carry strengthens public safety.

Fyock v. Sunnyvale. 779 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2014). Amicus brief for Gun Owners of California and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. The history of magazines of greater than 10 rounds, and of magazine prohibition, in the United States.

Peruta v. San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014). Amicus brief of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, and the Independence Institute. Details why the carrying of an unloaded handgun--which can only be loaded under "imminent" threat--is insufficient to effectuate the constitutional right of armed self-defense. Also details police interests in encouraging concealed carry rather than open carry. Includes numerous short videos to illustrate the brief's descriptions of how guns are loaded, and how they are deployed in an emergency. Same case in the District Court, 758 F.Supp.3d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 2010): amicus brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and Independence Institute. Heller and McDonald recognize the right to bear arms.

Jackson v. San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013). Amicus brief of California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation and Independence Institute. Requirement that guns at home must be locked up when they are not being carried on the person.

McKay v. Hutchens 668 Fed. Appx. 782 (9th Cir. 2012). Amicus brief of the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association, International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, Inc., and the Independence Institute. Right to carry.

Tenth Circuit

Baca v. Secretary of State. No. 18-1173. June 27, 2018. Amicus brief for Independence Institute. States cannot compel presidential electors to vote a certain way.

Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 744 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2014). Amicus brief for Cato Institute and Independence Institute. The Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights provisions for direct democracy are consistent with the original meaning of the Republican Form of Government Clause. Amicus brief in the District Court.

Colorado District Court

Gates v. Polis, No. 22-cv-1866-GPG-SKC (D. Colo., Nov. 30, 2023). Amicus brief of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, the Western States Sheriffs Association, Sheriffs John Feyen (Larimer County), Gene Lillard (Montrose), Brett Powell (Logan), Todd Rowell (Mesa), Steve Reams (Weld), Aaron Shiplett (Baca), Lou Vallario (Garfield), Sam Zordel (Prowers), and the Independence Institute. Colorado ban on magazines over 15 rounds endangers public safety. Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief.

Eleventh Circuit

Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011). Amicus brief of the Independence Institute. Explains the original meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause, and why the individual mandate is neither "necessary" nor "proper."

State Courts

Chiafalo v. Washington. No. 953-47-3. Dec. 5, 2018. Washington Supreme Court. Amicus brief of Independence Institute. Based on original public meaning of Article II and the Twelfth Amendment, presidential electors are free to vote their conscience, and cannot be constrained by state law.

Colorado

Chronos v. Department of Labor and Employment. Independence Institute amicus brief in Colorado Supreme Court, in support of neither party. The court should stop nullifying the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights and should obey the TABOR textual rule: “Its preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.” Mar. 9, 2022. Video: Independence Institute TV. Apr. 22, 2022. Asking Colorado's Supreme Court to Be Reasonable. Dave discusses his Colorado Supreme Court amicus brief on the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. According to the brief, "The Reasonably Restrain Clause is the supreme law of Colorado and it governs the Supreme Court of Colorado. Judicial statements that purport to replace the Reasonably Restrain Clause with a contrary rule are acts of power and not of law."

In re: Interrogatory Submitted by the Colorado General Assembly. No. 2020SA000100. Brief of Independence Institute. Mar. 24, 2020.

RMGO v. Polis. No. 2018SC817. June 3, 2019. Colorado Supreme Court. Amicus brief of Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, 32 County Sheriffs, and the Independence Institute. The ban on magazines over 15 rounds harms public safety and law enforcement. Motion for leave to file amicus brief.

Colorado Department of Labor v. Dami Hospitality. No. 17SC200. July 2, 2018. Colorado Supreme Court. Amicus brief of the Cato Institute and the Independence Institute. The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not have a loophole allowing excessive fines against corporations.

RMGO v. Hickenlooper. No. 2017CA1502, 2018 WL 5974555. (Colo. App. 2018). Amicus brief for Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association; Sheriffs Chad Day (Yuma County), Steve Reams (Weld), Shannon K. Byerly (Custer), and Sam Zordel (Prowers); and the Independence Institute. Why Colorado's magazine ban endangers public safety.

Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas County School District. 351 P.3d 461 (Colo. 2015), judgment vacated 137 S.C. 2323 (June 27, 2017). Amicus brief for the Independence Institute and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Covers empirical and social science issues of school choice..

Regents of the University of of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. 271 P.3d 496  (Colo. 2012). Amicus brief for the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Independence Institute. Licensed carry on campus promotes public safety. Discussed by Justice Hobbs during oral argument.

Robertson v. Denver 874 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1993). Colorado Attorney General reply brief in district court. Colorado Attorney General answer brief in Colorado Supreme Court. Later proceeding, 978 P.2d 156 (Colo. App. 1999) (brief for plaintiffs, with Stephen Halbrook). Denver's "assault weapon" ban.

Florida

Florida v. Garcia. No. SC20-1419. Florida Supreme Court. Merits amicus brief of Independence Institute and Due Process Institute (May 10, 2021). Compelling an individual to disclose his cell phone password to law enforcement violates the Fifth Amendment and the Florida Constitution.

State of Florida v. Robert Kraft. No. 4D19-1499 (Fla. App. 4th Dist. 2020). Merits amicus brief of Independence Institute. When conducting covert electronic surveillance, police officers are legally required to minimize the surveillance of innocent third parties; the government's failure to do so when placing secret cameras in a massage parlor means that evidence therefrom should be excluded.

Illinois

People of the State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown. No 127201. Amicus brief of State's Attorney Stewart J. Umholtz, Professors Of Second Amendment Law, Independence Institute, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition. Nov. 17, 2021. The government cannot criminalize the simple keeping of an ordinary long gun in the home by a person who is not prohibited from possessing firearms.

People v. Vivian Claudine Brown. (Ill. 2019). Amicus brief on behalf of State’s Attorneys Stewart J. Umholtz and Brandon J. Zanotti, Professors Of Second Amendment Law, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Millennial Policy Center, Independence Institute, and Carlisle Moody. Illinois FOID licensing law for firearms possession cannot be applied to peaceable possession of a lawful gun on one's own property by a person who is not prohibited from owning guns.

People v. Aguilar. 2 N.E.3d. 321 (Ill. 2013). Amicus brief of Professors Michael O'Shea, Nicholas Johnson, and David Kopel. Illinois's complete prohibition of defensive carry in public places violates the Second Amendment.

Vermont

Vermont v. Misch, 2021 VT 10 (Apr. 24, 2020). Amicus brief of Cato Institute, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Independence Institute. Vermont magazine ban violates the text, history, tradition, and policy of the Vermont Constitution's right to arms. Statutory addendum.

Wisconsin

James v. Heinrich. No. 2020AP001419. Nov. 17, 2020. Merits amicus brief of state think tanks against unscientific order forcing closure of independent schools.

Citations in State Courts

Alabama

Bolden v. State, 205 So.3d 739, 749 n.2 (Ala. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (Welch, J., dissenting). Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015).

California

Gund v. County of Trinity, 10 Cal.5th 503, 513 (2020). Citing The Posse Comitatus and the Office of Sheriff: Armed Citizens Summoned to the Aid of Law Enforcement, 104 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 761 (2015).

People v. Genel, 2018 WL 1919053 *11-12 (Cal. App., 2d Dist, Apr. 24, 2018). Citing Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167 (2013).

Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472, 510, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, 360 (Cal. 2000) (Brown, J., concurring). Citing Communitarians, Neorepublicans, and Guns: Assessing the Case for Firearms Prohibition, 56 Maryland Law Review 438 (1997).

Kasler v. Lungren, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 260, 265 (Cal. App. 1998). Citing Rational Basis Analysis of 'Assault Weapon' Prohibition, 20 Journal of Contemporary Law 381 (1994).

Colorado

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, 2020 CO 66, at 7 n. 3. (2020). "Amici Curiae Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association et al. argue that HB 1224 also burdens the article II, section 13 right 'to keep and bear arms . . . in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned.' Because Plaintiffs did not address this theory in their complaint, on appeal, or in their briefing to this court, we do not review it." Which means that this portion of the Colorado right is expressly not judicially nullified.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Hickenlooper, 371 P.3d 768, 784 (Colo. App., 2016) (Graham, J., dissenting). Citing Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015).

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents of University of Colorado, 280 P.3d 18, 25 (Colo. App. 2010). Citing Kopel brief.

Connecticut

State v. DeCiccio, 315 Conn. 79, 121-22, 128 n.34, 133-34; 105 A.3d 165, 193, 197 n.34, 200 (2014). Citing Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167 (2013) and The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU Law Review 1359.

Delaware

Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club v. Small, 176 A.3d 632, 651 n.97 (Del. 2017). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU Law Review 1359.

District of Columbia

Gamble v. United States, 30 A.3d 161, 161 n.7 (D.C. App. 2011). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU Law Review 1359.

Hawaii

State v. Mendoza, 82 Hawai'i 143, 146 n.4, 920 P.2d 357, 360 n.4 (Haw. 1996). Citing A Tale of Three Cities: The Right to Bear Arms in State Courts, 68 Temple Law Review 1177 (1995).

Illinois

People v. Chairez, 104 N.E.3d. 1158, 1169 n.3 (Ill. 2018). Citing Johnson, Kopel, et al. Firearms Law and the Second Amendment textbook.

Louisiana

State v. Ford, No. No. 23-718 (La. App. 3d Cir., Dec. 13, 2013). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Massachusetts

Commonwealth v. Isert, No. 2381CR00217, 2023 WL 9000025 (Superior Ct. Mass., Dec. 26, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Michigan

Wade v. University of Michigan, --- N.W.3d ----, 2023 WL 4670440, slip op. at 8 (Mich. App. July 20, 2023). Upholding University of Michigan gun ban. Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Wade v. University of Michigan, 981 N.W.2d 56, 58 n.3 (Mich. 2022) (mem.) (Viviano, J., concurring). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

New Hampshire

Bach v. New Hampshire Department of Safety, 143 A.3d 246, 252, 169 N.H. 87, 93 (N.H. 2016). Citing Pretend "Gun-free" School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction, 42 Connecticut Law Review 515 (2009).

New York

People of the State of New York v. Anthony Trowells, no. 3015/2013 (Aug. 4, 2014; Supreme Court, Bronx County, Part 92) (Justice Troy Webber). Citing Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167 (2013).

Oregon

Oregon v. Christian, 274 P.3d 262, 280 n.15, 249 Or. App. 1, 32 n.15 (Or. Ct. App., 2012) (Edmonds, J., dissenting). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU Law Review 1359.

Oregon v. Hirsch, 338 Or. 622, 657, 114 P.3d 1104, 1123 (Ore. 2005). Citing It isn't about Duck Hunting: The British Origins of the Right to Arms (book review), 96 Michigan Law Review 1333 (1995).

Puerto Rico

Pueblo v. Rodriguez Lopez, 210 D.P.R. 752, 772, 2022 TSPR 128 (2022). Citing The Federal Circuits' Second Amendment Doctrines, 61 St. Louis University Law Journal 193 (2017).

Rhode Island

Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1040 (R.I. 2004). Citing What State Constitutions Teach about the Second Amendment, 29 Northern Kentucky Law Review 827 (2002).

Texas

Ferguson v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 629 S.W.3d 907 n.4 (Tex. June 25, 2021) (Blacklock, J., dissenting from denial of petition for review). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359, 1535–36 (1998).

Vermont

State v. Misch, 214 Vt. 309, 356-57, 256 A.3d 519 (2020). Citing Amicus brief of Cato Institute et al.

Virginia

Taylor v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 78 Va. App. 147, 154, 890 S.E.2d 634, 637 (2023). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment textbook.

Stickley v. City of Winchester, No. CL21-206, 2022 WL 16950948 (Circuit Court of Virginia, Winchester, Sept. 27, 2022). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Washington

Seattle v. Evans, 366 P.3d 906, 914 n.10, 919, 926, 184 Wash.2d 856, 871 n.10, 883, 896 (Wash. 2015) (by both majority and dissent). Citing Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167 (2013).

State v. Schelin, 147 Wash.2d 562, 588, 5 P.3d 632, 645 (Wash. 2002) (Sanders, J., dissenting). Citing A Tale of Three Cities: The Right to Bear Arms in State Courts, 68 Temple Law Review 1177 (1995).

Wisconsin

State v. Herrmann, 873 N.W.2d 257, 262, 366 Wis.2d 312, 323 (Wisc. App. 2015) (Stark, P.J.). Citing Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167 (2013).

Wisconsin v. Fisher, 290 Wis.2d 121, 154 n.6, 714 N.W.2d 495, 511 n. 6 (Wisc., May 17, 2006) (Crooks, J., dissenting). Citing The Licensing of Concealed Handguns for Lawful Protection: Support from Five State Supreme Courts, 68 Albany Law Review 305 (2005).

State v. Hamdan, 264 Wis.2d 433, 467 n. 23, 665 N.W.2d 785, 802 n. 23 (Wisc. 2003). Citing What State Constitutions Teach about the Second Amendment, 29 Northern Kentucky Law Review 827 (2002).

Wyoming

Pagel v. Franscell, 57 P.3d 1226, 1234 (Wy. 2002) (Golden, J., specially concurring). Citing Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Laws, 63 Tennessee Law Review 679 (1995).

Citations in Federal Courts

United States Supreme Court

New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 2133 (2022). Majority opinion by Justice Thomas cites The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U.S.---, 140 S.Ct. 2246, 2268, 2270 (2020) (Alito, J., concurring) (citing Independence Inst. amicus brief, and scholarship of Ind. Inst.'s prof. Rob Natelson).

Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ---, 140 S.Ct. 2316, 2325-26 (2020) (majority opinion by Justice Kagan). "The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words ["vote," "ballot," "electors"] expected the Electors’ votes to reflect their own judgments. See Brief for Petitioners 18–19; Brief for Independence Institute as Amicus Curiae 11–15. . . . But even assuming other Framers shared that outlook, it would not be enough."

Rogers v. Grewal, 590 U.S.---, 140 S.Ct. 1865, 1870 n. 3 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Citing The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation, 14 Geo. J. L.& Pub. Pol’y 127, 135 n. 46 (2016).

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, 140 S.Ct. 1525, 1527 n. 1, 1541 (2020) (Justice Alito dissenting, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas). "[T]he law was upheld based on what we are told is the framework for reviewing Second Amendment claims that has been uniformly adopted by the Courts of Appeals. See Brief for Second Amendment Law Professors et al. as Amici Curiae 8-9.” “It is true that a lawful gun owner can sometimes practice at a range using a gun that is owned by and rented at the range. But the same model gun that the person owns may not be available at a range, and in any event each individual gun may have its own characteristics. See Brief for Professors of Second Amendment Law et al. as Amici Curiae 10-12. Professors brief.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 751 n.2, 888 n.31, 904 (2010). Kopel's amicus brief is cited in Justice Alito's majority opinion and twice in Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 700-01, 710 (2008). Kopel's brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA) and other law enforcement organizations is cited four times in Justice Breyer's dissent, examining the pro/con social science on gun ownership.

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). Citing Johnson, Kopel, et al., Firearms Law and the Second Amendment textbook.

2d Circuit Court of Appeals

Antonyuk v. Chiumento, 2023 WL 8518003, *14, 27 (2d. Cir., Dec. 8, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 229-36, 244-47 (2018); Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Laws, 63 Tennessee Law Review 679, 680, 681 (1995).

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals

Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, No. 21-1832, -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 189453 *15-16, 16 n.5, 18 (3d Cir., Jan. 18, 2024) (Restrepo, J., dissenting). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 177-88, 242-54; The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 Journal of Legislation ms. at 192-93 (Notre Dame, forthcoming 2024).

Range v. Attorney General United States of America, 69 F.4th 96, 122 n.51, 124 n.66, 68-71, 125 n.86 (3rd Cir. 2023) (en banc) (Krause, J., dissenting). Citing Nicholas J. Johnson et al., Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy 174, 197, 198, 301 (3d ed. 2022). Majority allows as-applied exception to 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(1).

Frein v. Pennsylvania State Police, 47 F.4th 247, 255 (3d Cir. 2022). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359, 1445–48 (1998).

Folajtar v. Attorney General, 980 F.3d 897, 905 (3d Cir. 2020). Citing The Posse Comitatus and the Office of Sheriff: Armed Citizens Summoned to the Aid of Law Enforcement, 104 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 761 (2015).

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs Inc v. Attorney General New Jersey, 974 F.3d 237, 252 n.4, 255-56, 258 (3d Cir. 2020) (Matey, J., dissenting). Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015), and The Federal Circuits' Second Amendment Doctrines, 61 St. Louis University Law Journal 193 (2017).

Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 441 n.3 & 5, 442 (3d Cir. July 31, 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Citing Johnson, Kopel, et al., Firearms Law and the Second Amendment textbook.

Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, 910 F.3d 106, 112 n.7 (3d Cir. 2018) (noting that parties supplied writings from Christopher Koper and David Kopel).

4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco & Explosives, 5 F.4th 407, 419 n.10, 425 n.16-17, 426 n. 21, 427 n.23, 433 n.41, 434 n.46-47, 438 n.52 (4th Cir. 2021). Citing The Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults, 43 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 495 (2019); History and Tradition in Modern Circuit Cases on the Second Amendment Rights of Young People, 43 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 119 (2018); The Posse Comitatus and the Office of Sheriff: Armed Citizens Summoned to the Aid of Law Enforcement, 104 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 761 (2015).

Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 159 (2017) (en banc) (Traxler, J., dissenting). Citing Rational Basis Analysis of 'Assault Weapon' Prohibition, 20 Journal of Contemporary Law 381 (1994)

5th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States v. Daniels, 77 F.4th 337 n.29 (5th Cir. 2023). Amicus brief cited and quoted in the court's opinion. Amicus brief by Scholars of Second Amendment Law (F. Lee Francis, Nicholas J. Johnson, Donald E.J. Kilmer, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary Joseph V. Muha, Joseph E. Olson, Glenn H. Reynolds) and Independence Institute. The ban on firearms possession by every "user" of marijuana, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), is contrary to history and tradition, as shown by historic laws pertaining to alcohol. Shooting or weaning firearms while intoxicated may be prohibited, but not use while sober.

United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 460 n.11 (5th Cir. 2023). Citing The Federal Circuits' Second Amendment Doctrines, 61 St. Louis University Law Journal 193, 244 (2017). Federal ban on gun possession based on civil restraining orders, rather than criminal process, is unconstitutional.

United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 536 (5th Cir. 2015). Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015).

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 940, 948 (7th Cir. 2012). Majority opinion by Judge Posner cites The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359 (1998). Dissenting opinion by Judge Williams cites The Right to Arms in the Living Constitution, 2010 Cardozo Law Review de Novo 99.

Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 702 n. 11 (7th Cir. 2011) (Sykes, J.). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359 (1998) and commending it as showing the proper model of "originalist interpretive method as applied to the Second Amendment."

United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803, 806 n.2 (7th Cir. 2009). Citing The Natural Right of Self-defense: Heller's Lesson for the World, 59 Syracuse Law Review 235 (2008).

8th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States v. Jackson, 85 F.4th 468, 471 (8th Cir. 2023) (Stras, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 90-91, 115-16, 240.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Duncan v. Bonta, 83 F.4th 803, 814, 818 n.6 (9th Cir. 2023) (Bumatay, J., dissenting). Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849, 851 (2015); Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167, 180 (2013).

Teter v. Lopez, 276 F.4th 938, 951 n.11 (9th Cir. 2023). Hawaii ban on butterfly knives is unconstitutional. Citing Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167, 180-81 (2013).

United States v. Willy, 40 F.4th 1074, 1097 n.11 (9th Cir. 2022) (Christen, J., dissenting). Citing Kopel's written testimony for "What Should America Do About Gun Violence?" Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (2013).

Jones v. Bonta, 34 F.4th 704, 717 n.8, 10-13 (9th Cir. 2022). Citing The Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults, 43 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 495 (2019); The Posse Comitatus and the Office of Sheriff: Armed Citizens Summoned to the Aid of Law Enforcement, 104 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 761 (2015).

Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087, 1130, 1154, 1162 n.3 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Majority cites The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015). Dissent by Judge Bumatay (joined by Judges Ikuta and Nelson) also cites that article. Judge Van Dyke's dissent cites The Federal Circuits' Second Amendment Doctrines, 61 St. Louis University Law Journal 193 (2017).

Young v. State of Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765, 791 n.11-12, 833 n.2 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Majority cites The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation, 14 Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 127 (2016). Dissent by Judge O'Scannlain cites The Natural Right of Self-defense: Heller's Lesson for the World, 59 Syracuse Law Review 235 (2008).

Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, 1149 (9th Cir. 2020). Opinion includes three pages of the history of magazines, based on The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015). Also citing The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation, 14 Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 127 (2016); The Natural Right of Self-defense: Heller's Lesson for the World, 59 Syracuse Law Review 235 (2009); and Amicus brief for Professors of Second Amendment Law et al.

Pena v. Lindley, 898 F.3d 969, 1004 n.17 (9th Cir. 2018) (Bybee, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Citing The Federal Circuits' Second Amendment Doctrines, 61 St. Louis University Law Journal 193 (2017).

Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044, 1054 n.8 (9th Cir. 2018) (O'Scannlain, J.). Citing The Natural Right of Self-defense: Heller's Lesson for the World, 59 Syracuse Law Review 235 (2008).

Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 693 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (Tallman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Citing How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution, 38 Charleston Law Review 283 (2012).

Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 937 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359 (1998).

Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 822 F.3d 1047, 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2016). Citing Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce? 127 Harvard Law Review Forum 230 (2014).

Peruta v. San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU L. Rev. 1359 (1998).

Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 585 n. 92 (9th Cir. 2003) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting from denial of petition for rehearing en banc). Citing The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 BYU Law Review 1359.

10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Bonidy v. United States Postal Service, 790 F.3d 1121, 1130-31 (10th Cir. 2015) (Tymkovich, J., concurring & dissenting). Citing Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce? 127 Harvard Law Review Forum 230 (2014).

United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1049 n.2 (10th Cir. 2009) (Tymkovich, J. concurring). Citing The Second Amendment in the Tenth Circuit: Three Decades of (Mostly) Harmless Error, 86 Denver University Law Review 901 (2009).

United States v. McElhiney, 275 F.3d 928, 935 n.2 (10th Cir. 2001). Citing The Self-Defense Cases: How the Supreme Court Confronted a Hanging Judge in the Nineteenth Century, 27 American Journal of Criminal Law 294 (2000).

U.S. Districts of California

Baird v. Bonta, 2023 WL 9050959, *9 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2023). Mentioning How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution, 6 Charleston Law Review 283 (2012).

May v. Bonta, 2023 WL 8946212, *5, 6, 9, 11 n.8, 14 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 211, 233 n. 108, 234, 235-36, 242, 250, 289, 290-91, 292, (2018).

Miller v. Bonta, 2023 WL 6929336, *13 n.86, 19 n.107, 21 n.121, 23 n.133, 25 n. 153, 32 n.203 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2023). Holding California "assault weapon" ban unconstitutional. Slip opinion citations: 27 n.86, 38 n.107, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 Journal of Legislation at 45-46, 60 (Notre Dame, forthcoming 2024); 41-42 n.121, 66 n.203, State court standards of review for the right to arms, 50 Santa Clara Law Review 1113, 1145 n.51 (2010); 45 n.133, The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 240 (2018); 50 n.152 Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167, 168 (2013).

Duncan v. Bonta, 2023 WL 6180472, *2 n.15, 16 n.121, 24 n.177, 32 n.215, n216, 33 n.218 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2023). Holding magazine ban unconstitutional. Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849, 874 (2015); The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 Journal of Legislation (Notre Dame, forthcoming 2024); Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167, 168 (2013).

U.S. District of Connecticut

United States v. Hairston, 3:23-cr-00020-SVN, 2024 WL 326667 *6 (D. Conn., Jan. 29, 2024). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 174.

U.S. District of District of Columbia

Hanson v. District of Columbia, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 3019777 (D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2023). Citing The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015).

U.S. Districts of Florida

United States v. Ayala, No. 8:22-cr-369-KKM-AAS, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2024 WL 132624 *6-7, 12 ( M.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2024). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 213-15, 229-36, 244-47 (2018).

National Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. Swearingen, 545 F.Supp.3d 1247, 1253-55, 1256-57, 1260, 1262 (N.D. Fla. 2021). Citing The Federal Circuits' Second Amendment Doctrines, 61 St. Louis University Law Journal 193 (2017); The Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults, 43 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 495 (2019); History and Tradition in Modern Circuit Cases on the Second Amendment Rights of Young People, 43 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 119 (2018); Background Checks for Firearms Sales and Loans: Law, History, and Policy, 53 Harvard Journal on Legislation 303 (2016).

U.S. Districts of Illinois

United States v. Calhoun, 22-CR-00025, 2024 WL 36977 *12 (N.D. Ill., January 3, 2024); United States v. Phillips, No. 1:22-CR-00596, 2023 WL 9001124 *11 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 28, 2023); United States v. Jackson, No. 21-cr-00175, 2023 WL 8601498 *11 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 12, 2023); United States v. Ball, No. 22-cr-00449, 2023 WL 8433981*10 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 5, 2023); United States v. Griffin, No. 21-cr-00693, 2023 WL 8281564 *7 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 30, 2023); United States v. Washington, No. 23-cr-00274, 2023 WL 8258654 *6 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2023); United States v. Vaughns, No. 22-cr-00636, 2023 WL 8258575 *7 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2023); United States v. Brown, No. 22-cr-00326-1, 2023 WL 8236918 *10 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2023); United States v. Brown, No. 22 CR 297, 2023 WL 8004290 *3 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 17, 2023); United States v. Hall, No. 22 CR 665, 2023 WL 8004291*5 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 17, 2023). All citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 174.

Barnett v. Raoul, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 3160285, No. 3:23-CV-00141-SPM (S.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2023). Citing Rational Basis Analysis of 'Assault Weapon' Prohibition, 20 Journal of Contemporary Law 381 (1994).

Bevis v. City of Naperville, 657 F.Supp.3d 1052, 1068 n.14-16 (N.D. Ill. 2023). Citing Knives and the Second Amendment, 47 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 167 (2013).

Solomon v. Cook County Board of Commissioners, 559 F.Supp.3d 675, 695 (N.D. Ill. 2021). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms. 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Marszalek v. Kelly, No. 20-CV-04270, 2021 WL 2350913 at *6, 9 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2021). Citing Background Checks for Firearms Sales and Loans: Law, History, and Policy, 53 Harvard Journal on Legislation 303 (2016).

U.S. District of Maryland

Maryland Shall Issue v. Montgomery County, Maryland, No. TDC-21-1736, 2023 WL 4373260 *15-16 (D. Md. July 6, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018). Upholding licensed carry ban in various locations.

United States v. Power, 2023 WL 131050, *4, 6 n.4 (D. Md., Jan. 9, 2023) and United States v. Robertson, 2023 WL 131051 (same). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018)

United States v. Marique, 647 F.Supp.3d 382, 394 n.3 (D. Md. 2022). The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 289 (2018).

United States v. Tallion, 2022 WL 17619254, at *7 n.3 (D. Md., Dec. 13, 2022). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

United States v. Hosford, 82 F.Supp.3d 660, 664 (D. Md. 2015). Citing Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce? 127 Harvard Law Review Forum 230 (2014).

Lorenda Moody v. The ARC of Howard County, Inc., 2011 WL 2671385, *5 n.4, 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,221 (D. Md., July 07, 2011) (Judge Bredar). Citing Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Laws, 63 Tennessee Law Review 679 (1995).

U.S. Districts of Mississippi

United States v. Pineda-Guevara, No. 5:23-CR-2-DCB-LGI, 2023 WL 4943609, *4 n.5 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 2, 2023). Rejecting challenge to 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(5), which bars firearms possession by unlawful aliens. Citing The Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults, 43 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 495, 533-96 (2019).

United States v. Andrade-Hernandez, 3:23-CR-26-DCB-LGI, 2023 WL 4831408, *4 n.5 (S.D. Miss. July 27, 2023). Rejecting challenge to 18 U.S.C. sect. 922(g)(5), which bars firearms possession by unlawful aliens. Citing The Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults, 43 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 495, 533-96 (2019).

U.S. District of Montana

United States v. Metcalf, No. CR 23-103-BLG-SPW, 2024 WL 358154 *7-8 (D. Mont., Jan. 31, 2024). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 246, 250 (2018).

U.S. District of New Jersey

Koons v. Platkin, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 3478604, No. CV 22-7463 (D.N.J. May 16, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018); Guns in America: Arming the Right People Can Save Lives, L.A. Times (Jan. 15, 2013); Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Laws, 63 Tennessee Law Review 679 (1995).

U.S. Districts of New York

United States v. Davila, 2023 WL 5361799, *3 (S.D.N.Y, Aug. 22, 2023). Citing Firearms Law and the Second Amendment 174.

Goldstein v. Hochul, 2023 WL 4236164, *11 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018). Upholding ban on licensed carry in churches, synagogues, and other religious buildings.

Christian v. Nigrelli, 642 F.Supp.3d 393, 407 9 n.19 (W.D.N.Y. 2022). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

Hardaway v. Nigrelli, 639 F.Supp.3d 422, 437 (W.D.N.Y. 2022) (prelim. inj.); 636 F.Supp.3d 329, 342 (W.D.N.Y. 2022) (TRO). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018). With Joseph G.S. Greenlee.

United States v. Vargas, 885 F. Supp. 504, 505 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (Judge Vincent Broderick). An Appendix to the opinion reprints Judge Broderick's article "Flexible Sentencing and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994" from  Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 7, No. 3, November/December 1994 at pages 128-131. Kopel is cited at note 1.

U.S. Districts of Oklahoma

United States v. Harrison, 654 F.Supp.3d 1191, 1221 n.176 (W.D. Okla. 2023). Citing Restoring the right to bear arms: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 2021-22 Cato Supreme Court Review at 325-26 (Trevor Burrus ed., 2022). Ban on firearms possession by marijuana users is unconstitutional.

United States v. Coombs, 629 F.Supp.3d 1149, 1156, 1160 (N.D. Okla. 2022). Citing The First Amendment Guide to the Second Amendment, 81 Tennessee Law Review 417 (2014).

U.S. Districts of Texas

United States v. Allam, 2023 WL 5846534, *8-9, 11-12, 18-20, 22-23 (E.D. Tex., June 14, 2023). Upholding gun-free school zones law. Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205, 207, 218, 244, 245, 249, 251-52, 253-56, 257, 258, 265, 281, 290 (2018).

United States v. Connelly, 668 F.Supp.3d 662 (W.D. Tex. 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

United States v. Barber, 2023 WL 1073667, *10 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2023). Citing Johnson, Kopel, et al. Firearms Law and the Second Amendment textbook. Arms possession ban for convicted violent felons is not unconstitutional.

U.S. District of the Virgin Islands

United States v. Walter, 2023 WL 3020321, No. 3:20-CR-0039 (D.V.I. Apr. 20, 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018).

U.S. Districts of Washington State

United States v. Jackson, 656 F.Supp.3d 1239, 1243 n.2 (W.D. Wash. 2023). Citing The “Sensitive Places” Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms, 13 Charleston Law Review 205 (2018). Ban on firearms possession by convicted felons is constitutional.

Out of court statement by Judges

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Justice William Pryor previously served as Attorney General for the State of Alabama. As Attorney General, he contributed the following jacket quote for Kopel's book Antitrust after Microsoft: "Against the backdrop of the Microsoft case and the volatile marketplace in the information-technology age, David Kopel brilliantly and concisely makes the case for putting consumers first by burying antitrust doctrines of monopoly power, tying arrangements, and predatory pricing.

District of Colorado

Reason, December 1999

David Kopel's article aptly demonstrates his keen analytical abilities and thorough research. Based upon the reasoning used in Rice v. Paladin, a survivor of guerrilla warfare could sue Leon Uris for writing Trinity or Exodus because they extol the excitement and effectiveness of guerrilla tactics against an established government with consequent loss of innocent lives. If one could obtain jurisdiction on the authors or editors of the Bible, I can only hazard a guess as to how many miscreants would attempt to justify their criminal behavior through their fractured readings of the Good Book.

The missing ingredient from these ridiculous decisions is the independent intervening cause that breaks the chain of circumstances leading from a book to action: the mind and judgment of the reader. The wisdom of the ages insists that responsibility for that judgment or lack thereof rests with the reader. Aside from the other dangers of censorship and thought control about which Kopel writes so well, the very essence of a civilized society, based upon the requirement that individuals are responsible for their own acts, is being desiccated by this sort of mindless pandering.

John L. Kane Jr.
Senior Judge
U.S. District Court
Denver, CO

West Virginia Supreme Court

Jacket text for Kopel's book Guns: Who Should Have Them? "Whether you're an advocate or an opponent of gun control, this engaging, thoroughly-researched book presents innovative solutions to one of America's pressing social problems." Richard Neeley, retired Chief Justice, Supreme Court of West Virginia.

Citations in Law Reviews

Kopel has been cited in 1,284 law review articles in 381 different law journals. He has been cited by the main law journal at all of the 50 top law schools. Citations counted on 1/3/2024.

Below is a list of law reviews where Kopel has been cited. It includes all journals in Westlaw's JLR-PRO database. This includes some faculty-edited law journals (such as the Journal on Law and Economics), and also several practitioners journals which produce footnoted, scholarly articles, but which are not published by law schools. In the list below, most journals are cited in the simplest format (e.g., "Kentucky" rather than "University of Kentucky Law Review.")

Administrative Law Review, Akron, Alabama, Alabama Civil Rights & Civil Liberties J. Rev., Albany, Albany L.J. of Science & Technology, Alaska, American, American Bankruptcy L.J., American Criminal L. Rev., American Indian L. Rev., American J. of Criminal L. (from Univ. of Texas), American J. of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, American J. of Law & Medicine, American J. of Legal History, American U. Intl. L. Rev., Annual Survey of American Law, Annals of Health Law, Annual Survey of Int'l & Comp. L., Appalachian, Army Lawyer, Arizona, Arizona J. of International and Comparative L., Arizona State, Arkansas, Army Lawyer.

Baltimore, Baltimore J. Land & Development, Barry, Baylor, Belmont, Berkeley J. Crim. L., Boston College, Boston College Environmental Affairs, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Boston College Third World Law, Boston Univ., Boston Univ. Public Interest Law Journal, Brooklyn, Brooklyn J. Intl. L., British J. Amer. Legal Studies, Buffalo, Buffalo Human Rights, BYU, BYU Education. & L.J., BYU J. Public Law.

California (Berkeley), California Western, Campbell, Capital, Cardozo, Cardozo Arts and Entertainment, Cardozo J. of Conflict Resolution, Cardozo J. Intl. & Comp. L., Cardozo J. of L. & Gender, Case Western, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Catholic, Cato Supreme Court Rev., Champion  (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers), Chapman, Charleston, Chicago, Chicago-Kent, Chicago-Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law,  Cincinnati, Cleveland State, Colorado, Colorado Lawyer (Colorado Bar Association), Columbia, Columbia J. Envtl. L., Columbia J. of Gender & Law, Colombia J.L. & Social Problems, Columbia J. of Transnational L., Connecticut, Connecticut Public Interest L.J., Constitutional Commentary (faculty-edited, from Univ. of Minn.), Cornell, Cornell Intl. L.J., Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, Creighton, Creighton Int'l & Comp. L.J., Cumberland.

Davis (Univ. of Cal.), Davis J. International L. & Pol., Dayton, Defense Counsel Journal, Denver, Denver J. of Intl. Law & Pol., DePaul Law Review, DePaul J. Social Justice, DePaul-LCA Journal of Art and Entertainment L., DePaul J. Heath Care L., Detroit-Mercy, District of Columbia Law Review, Drake, Drexel, Duke, Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar, Duquesne.

Ecology L.Q., Education L. Rep., Elder Law J. (Illinois), Elon, Emory, Environmental & Energy Law & Policy, Environmental Law.

Federal Lawyer, Florida, Federalist Society Rev., Florida, Florida A&M, Florida Coastal L. Rev., Florida Intl., Florida J. of Law & Public Policy, Florida State, Fordham, Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment L.J., Fordham International L.J., Fordham Urban LJ.

George Mason, George Mason U. Civil Rights L.J., George Washington, Georgetown, Georgetown Intl. Enviro. L. Rev., Georgetown J. Gender & the Law, Georgetown J. Intl. L, Georgetown J.L. & Pub. Poly., Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Georgetown J. L. and Modern Critical Race Perspectives, Georgia, Georgia J. of Intl. & Comp. L., Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J., Gonzaga, Green Bag.

Hamline, Hamline J. of Law & Pub. Pol.; Harvard, Harvard BlackLetter L.J., Harvard J. of Law & Gender, Harvard Law & Policy Rev., Harvard J. of Law & Public Pol., Harvard J. on Legislation, Hastings, Hastings Business L.J., Hastings Constitutional L.Q., Hasting Science & Tech. L.J., Hawaii, Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine, Hofstra, Houston, Houston J. of Health L. & Policy, Howard.

Idaho, Illinois, Illinois Bar J., ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, Indiana, Indiana Health L. Rev., Indiana J. of Global Legal Studies, International Enforcement Law Rep., International Rev. of Law and Economics, Iowa, Irvine, IUS Gentium.

John Marshall, John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development L., Journal of Air Law & Commerce, Journal of Animal Law (Michigan State),Journal of College & University L., Journal of Corporation L., Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (from Northwestern), Journal of Food L. & Policy (Arkansas), Journal of Gender, Race & Justice (Iowa), Journal of High Technology Law, Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies, Journal of Law & Economics (faculty-edited, from U. of Chicago), Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, Journal of Law and Commerce (Pittsburgh), Journal of Law and Education, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Journal of Law & Policy (George Mason), Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, Journal of Law and Politics, Journal of Law & Religion (Emory), Journal of Legal Education, Journal of the Legal Profession, Journal Legal Med., Journal of Legal Studies, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Journal of Technology Law & Policy.

Kansas, Kansas J. of Law & Public Policy, Kentucky, Kentucky J. Equine, Agriculture & Natural Resource L.

Law & Contemporary Problems, Law & Ethics of Human Rights, Law & History, Law & Society, Law Library J., Lewis & Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Louisiana, Louisville, Loyola, Loyola Consumer L. Rev., Loyola of Los Angeles, Loyola Univ. of Chicago., Loyola University Chicago International Law Review.

Maine, Marquette, Marquette Sports Law, Maryland, Maryland L.J. Race, Religion, Gender & Class, Massachusetts, McGeorge, Medicine & Law, Memphis, Mercer, Miami, Miami International & Comparative, Michigan, Michigan J. Gender & L., Michigan J. of Law Reform, Michigan J. of Race and L., Michigan State, Midwest, Military L. Rev., Minnesota, Minnesota J. of International L., Mississippi, Missouri, Missouri (K.C.), Montana.

Nebraska, Nevada, New Criminal L. Rev., New England J. on Civil & Criminal Confinement, New England L. Rev., New Mexico, Nevada, New York International L. Rev., New York Law Sch. J. of Human Rights, New York L.S., New York L.S. J. of Intl. & Comp. L., Nexus, North Carolina, North Carolina Central, North Dakota, Northern Kentucky, NYU, NYU Annual Surv. Amer. L., NYU J. Intellectual Prop.,NYU J. Intl. L. & Politics, NYU J. of L. & Liberty, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, Northern Illinois, Northeastern, Northwestern, Northwestern J. of Law & Social Policy, Notre Dame, Nova.

Ohio Northern, Ohio State, Oklahoma City Univ., Oklahoma, Oregon.

Pace, Penn State, Penn State Arbitration L. Rev., Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania J. of Constitutional Law, Pennsylvania J.L. & Social Change, Penn State; Pepperdine, Phoenix, Preview of U.S. Sup. Ct. Cases, Public Land & Resources L. Rev., Public Law, Puget Sound.

Quinnipiac.

Regent, Review of Litigation, Richmond, Roger Williams, Rutgers L.J., Rutgers J. of L. & Public Policy, Rutgers J.L. & Religion, Rutgers L. Rev., Rutgers Race & the Law Rev.

San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice, Seattle, Seattle J. for Social Justice,  Seton Hall, Seton Hall Constitutional L.J., Seton Hall J. Sports & Entertainment L., Seton Hall Legislative J., South Carolina, South Dakota, South Texas, Southern California, Southern Cal. Interdisciplinary L.J.; Southern Illinois, Southern Methodist, Southern U. L.R., Southern J. Policy & Justice, Southwestern, St. John's, St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary, St. Louis U. Public Law Review, St. Mary's, St. Thomas, Stanford, Stanford J. Int'l L., Stanford L & Policy; Stanford Technology, Stetson, Suffolk, Suffolk J. Trial & Appellate Advocacy, Syracuse.

Temple, Tennessee, Texas, Texas J. on Civil Liberties & Civil Rights, Texas Rev. of Law & Politics, Texas Tech, Texas Tech. Administrative L.J., Texas Wesleyan,  The Crit, Theoretical Inquiries, Thomas M. Cooley, Thomas M. Cooley J. of Practical and Clinical L., Thomas Jefferson, Toledo, Toronto, Touro International L. Rev., Tulane, Tulsa.

UCLA, UCLA J. of International Law & Foreign Affairs, UCLA Entertainment L. Rev., UMKC, Utah.

Valparaiso, Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt J. of Transnational L., Vermont, Villanova, Villanova Environmental L. J., Virginia, Virginia J. of Social Policy & the Law, Virginia Tax Rev.

Wake Forest, Washburn, Washington U., Washington U. J. of Law & Policy, Washington & Lee, Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, Wayne, West Virginia, Western New England L. Rev., Western State, Whittier, Widener, Willamette, William & Mary, William & Mary Bill of Rights J., William Mitchell L. Rev., Wisconsin, Women's Rights Law Reporter (Rutgers), Wyoming.

Yale, Yale J. of International Law, Yale J. Regulation, Yale J. of Law & the Humanities, Yale Law & Policy.

Other Journals (partial list)

Acta Humana (Budapest), Actual Problems of Russian Law (Moscow State University), Advances in Applied Sociology, African Security Review, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political; American Behavioral Scientist, American Journal of Criminal Justice, American Review of Canadian Studies, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, The American Review of Public Administration, Armed Forces & Society, Asej Scientific Journal of Bielsko-Biala School of Finance And Law.

Business History Review (Harvard).

Catholic Social Science Review, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, China Journal, Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, Communication and Democracy, Communications and the Law, Conflict and Health, Constitutional Law Academic Studies (Uzhgorod National University, Ukraine), Contemporary Economic Policy, Contemporary Justice Review, Corporate and Business Law Journal, Criminology and Public Policy, Critical Ethnic Studies, Cuadernos de estrategia (Spanish Ministry of Defense).

Deviant Behavior, Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education.

Evaluation Review.

Foro Internacional, Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, The Future of Children.

Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Gazi University Faculty of Law, Ankara, Turkey), Global Crime, Global Responsibility to Protect, Great Plains Research, Grove City Journal of Law & Public Policy.

Historia Constitucional (Portugal), History of Global Arms Transfer, History Studies International Journal of History, Human Rights Law Review (Queen Mary U., London), Human Security Journal/Revue de Sécurité Humaine, Humanities science current issues

International Comparative Policy and Ethics, International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), Jmir Public Health and Surveillance, Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research; Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Journal of Asian History, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, Journal of Burma Studies, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Crime and Justice, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Journal of Economic Literature, Journal of emergency management, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Journal of Gender, Race and Justice; Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, Journal of Management Policy and Practice, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of Policy History, Journal of Public Health Policy, Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology, Journal of School Violence, Journal for Semitics, Journal Of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology.

Medical Sentinel, Men and Masculinities, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Modern American History.

Nordic Journal of Media Studies, Nuevo Foro Penal (EAFIT University, Colombia).

Palgrave Communications, Pediatric Clinics, Public Administration Review, Perspectives on Politics, Philosophia, PLoS ONE, Policing: An International Journal,  Post-Soviet Affairs, Psychology of Violence, Public Law Studies (South Korea), Purushartha: A Journal of Management Ethics and Spirituality (School of Management Sciences, Varanasi, India).

Qualitative Report, Queen Mary Human Rights Review.

Race, Gender & Class; Revista Latinoamericana De Estudios De Seguridad, RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences

The Social Science Journal, Social Science Quarterly, Social Theory and Practice, Social Work in Public Health, Sociation Today, Society and Natural Resources, Sociological Review, Sociology Lens, Strona (Poland).

Teachers College Record, Teoría y Realidad Constitucional (Madrid), Theological Studies.

Urvio (Ecuador).

Yearbook of International Security (Lower Silesian University, Poland).


Share this page:

Kopel RSS feed Click the icon to get RSS/XML updates of this website, and of Dave's articles.

Follow Dave on Twitter.

Kopel's Law & Liberty News. Twice-daily web newspaper collecting articles from Kopel and those whom he follows on Twitter.

Author page on Amazon.

Search Kopel website:

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional rights and public safety.
Donate Now!

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org

Copyright © 2018