Links:
-https://thereload.com/full-ninth-circuit-reverses-course-on-hawaii-handgun-purchase-limits-upholds-restrictions/
-https://thereload.com/poll-americans-split-on-what-scotus-should-do-in-ar-15-case/
-https://thereload.com/analysis-how-revolutionary-era-privateers-play-into-the-supreme-court-ar-15-case/
-https://thereload.com/doj-says-federal-ban-on-handgun-sales-to-adults-under-21-is-unconstitutional/
-https://thereload.com/analysis-doj-takes-a-shot-at-permit-to-purchase-laws-member-exclusive/
-https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-minnesota-st-paul-and-minneapolis-over-firearm-purchase-waiting

Bearing Arms editor Cam Edwards joins the show to share what he thinks are the most important and the most interesting amicus briefs in the case. He noted that a ton of briefs were submitted, including briefs from all kinds of groups outside your typical gun groups. He said some briefs focus on how the Supreme Court could answer not just whether AR-15 bans are unconstitutional, but also whether magazine bans or other hardware bans are unconstitutional.

Cam pointed to one brief that seeks to clarify that AR-15s aren't more powerful than other similar rifles that "assault weapons" bans don't touch and aren't employed by the military. He said the argument sought to debunk the idea that AR-15s are unusually dangerous.

We also went in depth on the Department of Justice's brief in the case, which asks the court to adopt a very unique view of the "common use" test. Then, we talk about gun-rights lawyer Alan Beck's brief that unearths some interesting historical evidence to argue the "dangerous and unusual" standard traditionally applied to conduct rather than the weapons themselves.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

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.