The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast,

become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com

slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath.

There were no domestic violence laws of any sort that would be even remotely analogous to 922 G8 at the founding. So we need to look for analogs that are

born out of similar justifications and sweep in a similar fashion. We're not going to find a domestic

violence law disarming abusers. I'm Matt Gluck, research fellow at law fair and

this is the law fair podcast December 27th, 2023.

The Supreme Court last month heard oral arguments in United States v Rahimi, in which the

court will decide the constitutionality of a federal law that criminalizes the possession of firearms by individuals on whom state courts have imposed domestic violence protective orders.

This case came to the court following its June

2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin. In that case

the court determined that whether a law violates the Second Amendment

depends on whether there is a quote representative historical analog for the

contemporary law.

Amanda Tyler, the Shannon Cecil Turner Professor of Law at the University of California

Berkeley School of Law, argued in a recent article in lawfare that the many laws

disarming loyalists that existed at the time of the founding

serve as a set of historical analogs required by Bruin to demonstrate the

constitutionality of the statute at issue in Rahimi, a claim which has been disputed by

Rahimi's lawyers.

I sat down with Tyler to discuss the Rahimi case, the nature of the founding era laws that

...