The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a “gun rights” challenge to state bans on weapons like the AR-15.

The conservative bloc’s only consistent practice is its inconsistent application of its own “history-and-tradition” test.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a scathing dissent as the court struck down Hawaii’s gun restrictions.

The latest Second Amendment case is just the latest to highlight the chaos wrought by the high court’s new “history and tradition” test.

Governor Spanberger signed an assault weapons ban. Some county prosecutors in pro-Trump areas say they won’t enforce it. Is a new MAGA nullification movement brewing?

The law bans high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Or so the Supreme Court seemed to think, in a very weird—and quite revealing—oral argument the justices heard last week.

The Minneapolis nurse’s death at the hands of federal agents has exposed the contradictions at the center of the gun rights debate.

So much for the Second Amendment, I guess?

The high court ruled that gun restrictions must pass a “history and tradition” test to be valid. Then the state of Hawaii called its bluff.

In another one of their “history and tradition” tests, the justices stand poised to upend laws all across the country.

The justices just took up a challenge to a Hawaii law that bars people from carrying guns on private property against the owner’s wishes.

The Show Me State’s ambitious attempt to nullify federal law may be several steps too far for many of the high court’s conservatives.

The high court’s 7-2 decision suggests broad agreement on a contentious issue. But if you read between the lines, there are fault lines everywhere.

The conservative majority wants to apply a “history and tradition” test to the Second Amendment. But whose history—and what traditions—have yet to be decided.

A recent lower court ruling asserting a constitutional right to own military hardware suggests that the conservative legal movement has the country on a grim path.

It’s fairer to say that the president took steps to shrink it, rather than abolish it entirely. But even that put John Cornyn’s knickers in a twist.

At oral arguments on Monday, the court took a dim view of the heavy-handed way that Andrew Cuomo and the State of New York attempted to crack down on the gun rights group.

Should the left arm itself?

Two years after the high court’s ruling in Bruen, we now live in a world with a constitutional expectation that any firearm is a legal firearm.