Sufficiently Analogous

An Episode for the Ages

Hosts Kelly Roskam, Tim Carey and Kari Still explore how courts are grappling with minimum age firearm regulations in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Alex McCourt, JD, PhD, MPH core faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, joins the show to share public health research on firearm risks among young adults. Special guest Professor Megan Walsh, JD, a visiting assistant clinical Professor of Law and the Director of the Gun Violence Prevention Law Clinic at the University of Minnesota Law School unpacks the shifting legal landscape in federal courts. ### 0:00 - Introduction and legal background 4:25 - Alex McCourt discusses the public health evidence behind age-based firearms laws 15:30 - Professor Megan Walsh, JD, shares the shifting legal landscape in federal courts 43:53 - Uncertainty around the law and what comes next

Should Drug Users Be Allowed to Own Firearms?

Hosts Tim Carey and Kari Still analayze challenges to the federal prohibition on firearm possession for users of illicit drugs. Beth McGinty, PhD, MS, Chief of the Division of Health Policy and Economics and Livingston Farrand Professor of Public Health at Weill Cornell Medicine shares insights about how substance usage affects the risk of firearm possesion. Matthew Osborne, PhD, MA, associate professor of history at the University of Missouri, Kansas City discusses the history of alcohol and drug regulation in the United States. ### 0:00 - Introduction and case background 6:00 - How courts are treating the current law and public debate 8:35 - What the research says about the risk of firearms and substance usage 24:00 - Conflicting challenges: United States v Daniels and United States v Beasley 38:00 - The historic of regulating alcohol and controlled substances 54:25 - What happens now?

What Rahimi Decision Means for the Second Amendment

Hosts Kelly Roskam, Tim Carey, and Kari Still react to and analyze the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v Rahimi. The Court upheld firearm prohibitions for those subject to domestic violence protective orders. This is the first time the Court has used its recent Bruen test in an opinion, but there are still many lingering questions about how lower courts should use the test when making decisions. ### 0:00 - Introduction 1:45 - U.S. v Rahimi decision recap 4:35 - Dr. Mary Anne Franks, legal scholar and professor of law at George Washington University Law School joins the show to analyze the Court's decision, discuss what it means for the Bruen test and other Second Amendment decisions. 32:30 - The Bruen test and historical analogies for disarming dangerous individuals 38:05 - Natalie Nanasi, associate professor at SMU, Dedman School of Law and founding director of the Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women discusses the impact of the Court's decision on domestic violence victims and survivors. 50:45 – Implications of the Court's decision on other gun violence prevention laws and challenges

U.S. v Rahimi: Firearms and Domestic Violence Protective Orders

Hosts Kelly Roskam, JD, and Tim Carey, JD discuss U.S. v Rahimi. The upcoming decision from the Supreme Court could decide if those subject to a domestic violence protective order can possess firearms, as well as clarify how courts are supposed to handle Second Amendment cases in a Post-Bruen era. ### 0:00 - Introduction 1:03 - Domestic violence protective orders background 4:35 - April Zeoli, PhD, MPH policy core director of the Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention at the University of Michigan discusses intimate partner violence and evidence on the efficacy of domestic violence protective orders in preventing both domestic and mass violence 18:33 Overview of previous challenges to protective order firearm prohibitions 23:40 - Case history of U.S. v Rahimi at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 42:30 – Supreme Court oral arguments in U.S. v Rahimi 58:13 – Outcome predictions

Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore and Firearm Purchaser Licensing

In the inaugural episode of "Sufficiently Analogous," the team and their guests take a deep dive into the case of Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore—a case that could shape the future of Firearm Purchaser Licensing laws across the country. Last year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found Maryland's Handgun Qualification License (HQL) unconstitutional. An HQL is a form of Firearm Purchaser Licensing that requires would-be handgun purchasers to apply for and receive a license. The two-judge majority ruling stated that the HQL, while not a permanent ban, violated the Second Amendment because it prevented individuals from immediately obtaining a handgun. ### Timestamps 0:00 - Introduction 2:30 - Recap of Bruen Framework 4:38 - What is Firearm Purchaser Licensing? 7:35 - Cass Crifasi, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses HQL & Firearm Purchaser Licensing 21:23 - Case History of MSI v. Moore 30:22 - Professor Saul Cornell, Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University discusses historic analogies and the Bruen test 45:50 - MSI v. Moore Oral Arguments and Predictions