When Law Schools Starts Teaching How to Eviscerate Your Second Amendment Rights

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses an upcoming law review article, which is about to be published which suggests that in the post-Bruen world, in order for government to continue to dictate who can be armed, blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional gun confiscation must occur and that qualified immunity will ultimately protect these government actors. Put in more simple terms "to hell with the laws and the constitution, let's just start rounding up the guns." And this is who is teaching the next generation of lawyers in this country. Learn what all of this really means and arm yourself with education today.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Contact Washington Gun Law
If you have any questions about this topic, or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment Rights, remember you can always contact us at:

www.washingtongunlaw.com or call us directly at 425-765-0487.

Stay safe.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Other Resources:

Here is the actual excerpt.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen threw the political project of gun regulation into question. Before Bruen, states could enact new kinds of gun restrictions if they passed a relatively stringent means-ends test. That is, if laws meaningfully reduced danger, while not too heavily burdening the right to self-defense, they were allowed. After Bruen, only gun controls actually in force in the founding era, and their close analogues, are permissible. Many fewer regulations will now pass the constitutional test.

Here, we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power, after Bruen, for states to disarm individuals they deem dangerous: qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields state officers from monetary liability for many constitutional violations. In short, unless a previous case “clearly established,” with high factual particularity, that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional, the officer does not pay. Thus, a state law enforcement officer may, after Bruen, confiscate an individual’s firearm if the officer deems that person too dangerous to possess it. The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly. But unless a previous, authoritative legal decision examining near-identical facts says so, the officer risks no liability. And because each individual act of disarmament will be unique, such prior decisions will be vanishingly rare. The result is a surprisingly free hand for states to determine who should and should not be armed, even in contravention of the Supreme Court’s dictates.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to use on Rumble. https://rumble.com/c/WashingtonGunLaw

Subscribe to us on Patreon. www.patreon.com/WashingtonGunLaw

Remember, you can follow us at www.washingtongunlaw.com

Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/WashingtonGunLaw

Follow us on Twitter @GunWashington