In a forthcoming article, legal scholar J. Joel Alicea defends the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, emphasizing its text-and-history approach to evaluating Second Amendment regulations. Alicea challenges critiques of Bruen, asserting that its methodology could reshape constitutional law by removing traditional tiers of scrutiny that have dominated since the 1960s.
Highlighting the importance of originalist interpretation, Alicea warns that if Bruen fails, it may hinder the broader application of originalism in legal contexts. He also identifies critical areas of debate within Bruen’s framework, such as its impact on common-use inquiries and the burden of proof on governments regarding firearm restrictions. These insights point to the potential for significant shifts in how Second Amendment rights are interpreted and enforced in the future.
Read full story at reason.com
