To discuss it, we have someone who has been around for that entire history and played a major role in shaping the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence. Lawyer Stephen Halbrook joins the show to explain that history and provide insight into how it will likely rule in the AR case.

Halbrook said the legal landscape was very different when he first started studying the issue. At that time, the idea that the Second Amendment protects much of anything was out of favor with the lower courts. Instead, he said, the collective-right formulation was the most widely accepted.

He noted it was a fairly small cohort of lawyers and academics that changed the legal landscape on the Second Amendment. He said the individual-rights formulation caught on quickly and culminated in the 2008 DC v. Heller decision. From there, the Court incorporated the Second Amendment right to own guns to the states in McDonald v. Chicago and then recognized the right to carry outside the home in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Halbrook said the Court added to its pro-gun precedents in the two cases it decided this year, and he expects it'll do the same again when it decides the AR-15 ban. He also provided some specific insight into why he believes the Court will go that direction and which justices are the ones to watch.

Special Guest: Stephen Halbrook.

Jake Charles, an associate professor at Pepperdine University, joins the show to give us an overview of his latest paper. In it, he comprehensively breaks down how many Second Amendment claims have been successful thus far and which ones have performed best. With 31 successful claims, the post-Bruen era has seen far more decisions against gun laws than the immediate aftermath of 2008's Heller decision.

Charles said he wasn't surprised by how much of an effect Bruen has had, given the nature of the test it lays down. But he was surprised by the success rates of different challenges, though. While many carry restrictions have been struck down on a consistent basis, cases against unlawful uses of firearms or prohibited person prohibitions have seen little success.

We also discuss some of the critiques Charles has of the Bruen standard generally. He explains his view that the Court forstalling the use of anything but historical laws is too restrictive. And he argues the historical test is so far underbaked, which he claims has led to confusion among lower courts.

Charles responds to common pro-gun arguments that critics of Bruen are mostly upset with the standard because there simply weren't many gun regulations at the founding, which limits what can be considered Constitutional today. And he explains why he believes the Court's approach to analysis by analogue is not flexible enough to deal with modern problems the founders didn't face.

Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Charles and I talk about a federal judge upholding Delaware's "assault weapons" ban despite finding the guns are in "common use" for self-defense.

Special Guest: Jake Charles.