Sufficiently Analogous

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

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 

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

In recent years, the Second Amendment has been the subject of intense debate and interpretation. Legal battles, court cases, and policy changes are reshaping the landscape of gun rights and regulations in the United States that affect our every-day lives. To dissect these complex issues, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions is proud to launch "Sufficiently Analogous," co-hosted by the Center's law and policy director, Kelly Roskam, JD, alongside law and policy advisors Tim Carey, JD and Kari Still, JD.

Episode 0 introduces the hosts, explains Second Amendment legal precedent and court cases shaping today's legal landscape 

###

Timestamps:

0:00 - Introduction

3:17 - Gun Violence Data

5:31 - Second Amendment Case History

11:55 - Conclusion