@JoeyVotto Great to see you interacting with fans on here. I was at your last game at GABP - it was a cool experience.

I was pleased to present argument on behalf of X in the Ninth Circuit yesterday in X Corp v. CCDH, a case presenting First Amendment and CFAA issues, among other things.

I have published an article on SCOTUSblog addressing Heller's language about presumptively lawful regulatory measures. From the conclusion: Heller’s discussion of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” does not provide a “get out of history free” card allowing the federal or state government to avoid meeting its burden under Bruen’s second step. Which is to say, there are not “safe harbors” of people, place, or status that are exempt from normal Second Amendment scrutiny. While Heller identified categories of historical exceptions to the right, it did not define their scope; rather, the court itself stated that “there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.” Until then, it is the government’s burden to demonstrate the historical scope of those exceptions, and to demonstrate that a challenged law fits within that scope. What the government cannot do is point to Heller’s “presumptively lawful” language and end the inquiry there.

I had the pleasure of presenting argument in the Fifth Circuit today on the question whether the federal ban on individuals purchasing handguns outside of their home state violates the Second Amendment.

Why is this important? The Heller passage is presumptively identifying categories of regulation akin to things like obscenity, incitement to violence, and fraud in the First Amendment context - things that are covered by the plain text of the right, but that are historical limits on its plain-text coverage.

Quick 2A thread: Heller's treatment of conditions and qualifications on commercial sale of arms demonstrates that such regulations implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Here is the conclusion to my latest on SCOTUSBlog: The Second Amendment is an increasingly active part of the court’s docket. Second Amendment cases no longer are epochal, groundbreaking jurisprudential events that come along once a decade (or less). Going forward, we can expect more terms like this one, with the court deciding one or more Second Amendment cases as it continues to define the contours of the right under the Heller-Bruen regime.

Another thought inspired by Knife Rights: While Georgia in 1837 did generally ban the open and concealed carry of pistols, it banned only the concealed carry of Bowie Knives. From Section 4 of the law: "no person or persons, shall be found guilty of violating the before recited act, who shall openly wear, externally, Bowie Knives ... and which shall be exposed plainly to view."