Sign in

Jake Charles

@jacobdcharles.bsky.social
6.8K followers 2.1K following 2.4K posts

Law prof, Pepperdine Law; Affiliated Scholar, Duke Center for Firearms Law. I write about constitutional law, especially the Second Amendment. Views my own. Bio: t.co/yVUcs14NoK Papers: bit.ly/3HleQND

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Jake Charles
Lawrence Hurley @lawrencehurley.bsky.social · 51m
The phrase "cultural zeitgeist of societal elites" as it refers to trans rights might need some parsing as SCOTUS of course ruled against the transgender plaintiffs in the underlying case.
1173
Reposted by Jake Charles
Mark Anthony Frassetto @mark-frassetto.bsky.social · 52m
The Founders did not believe the president had the power to suspend the enforcement of laws. Even James II only thought he had the power to dispense with individual enforcement of the law when it came to ecclesiastical matters.
231
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
More context
030
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
Very exciting new resource live today, showing how context-rich the search for historical gun laws should be! firearmslaws.com
173
Reposted by Jake Charles
Anthony Michael Kreis @anthonymkreis.bsky.social · 03/10/2026
Hypothetical: a president publicly discloses a private cell phone number to encourage millions to intimidate and disturb a legislator to pass a bill. It meets the criteria for state criminal harassment. Immune under Trump v. United States? Or official conduct that can overcome the presumption?
2332883
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
static.klipy.com
Dumb And Dumber: Lloyd's 'There's a Chance'
ALT: Dumb And Dumber: Lloyd's 'There's a Chance'
000
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
Maybe I’ll send a formal letter to your chancellor trying to get you fired just to make it super legit.
000
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
I mean, fact check: true.
100
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
lol, ya never know! Standing armies, as you know, were not an overlooked subject at the founding!
010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
I regret to tell you that you qualify as a scholar who tells lies and there do not qualify. www.wsj.com/opinion/an-a...
wsj.com
Opinion | An Award for Scholars Who Tell the Truth
The Carob Trust Prize for Academic Courage will honor social scientists who face unjustified attacks.
010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
I was raised conservative & joined the College Republicans in undergrad. There’s been a shift since, but sometimes I wonder abt whether I could still position myself to go after that $1 million award for heterodox opinions. Alas, I don’t think the kind I have is the kind the award is oriented to.
260
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
Wowww he doesn’t even call it The Trump Strait…sheeesh smdh
110
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
THATS *MORE THAN* HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS IN ONE YEAR. I’m sorry but everything is Monopoly money now. That’s just how it is - I don’t make the rules.
291
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
static.klipy.com
Macaulay Culkin's Iconic 'Woof!' from Home Alone
ALT: Macaulay Culkin's Iconic 'Woof!' from Home Alone
010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
Like if I’m faster I can reverse it, right?
010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
Ok, whoa, I just saw it’s a junior. I refuse to believe this.
100
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
Name and, ya know…
110
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
What I hear you saying is that so long as I personally reject linearity, I’m good?
120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
This is a fun flight update to get. It’s fine that my connection leaves before I get to the connecting airport, right??
280
Reposted by Jake Charles
Brianne Gorod @briannegorod.bsky.social · 24/09/2026
If you're a law student who wants to spend your summer working in the public interest & is interested in appellate advocacy, apply to join the @myconstitution.bsky.social team this summer! www.theusconstitution.org/legal-intern... 1/2
theusconstitution.org
Legal Internship Summer 2027 | Constitutional Accountability Center
About CAC Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) is a nonprofit law firm and think tank dedicated to fulfilling the inherently progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. ...
196
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 24/09/2026
I can’t see the original post because either I blocked that person or they blocked me, but I feel lucky either way judging by these replies.
010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
The cat apparently thought these shoes just might fit her
1101
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
Wait, is it the same DOJ making laughable arguments in defense of Trump that said just says ago it will not even defend duly enacted federal gun laws that many lower courts have upheld as constitutionally permissible? @mikesacks.bsky.social
150
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
Good point - I had forgotten that the founding generation was really hoping federal judges would ensure uniformity in legislation across state lines.
020
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
🤷‍♂️ I have long thought the Court should deal with the most pressing issues that affect the most people - like the 922(g)(1) cases it ignores — but it has taken narrow state laws before, so possible this gets there. & then it’s anyone’s guess what persuades people under Bruen…
030
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
Whole thing here: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op... And you could say that again…
150
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
I’m not exaggerating when I say that the second proposal here is a raw violation of VanDyke’s oath to uphold the Constitution. The 10th Amendment & federalism be damned if one state has a gun law that others don’t. The full dissent is worse & VanDyke writes alone again bc no one joins tantrums.
2167
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
Not joking I was just thinking the other day that I really wanted to read a good history of parliament, so I am looking forward to snatching this up when it arrives!
030
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
Unreasonably excited for my most recent book haul—spanning quite a decent time span!
290
Reposted by Jake Charles
Michael Smith @msmith750.bsky.social · 21/09/2026
My essay, "The Absence of Original Meaning in Second Amendment Cases," is forthcoming in the Quinnipiac Law Review! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... I argue that the Court's Second Amendment cases from 2022 to last term indicate an increasing unwillingness to engage in historical, textual meaning.
The Absence of Original Meaning in Second Amendment Cases
45 Quinnipiac Law Review (Forthcoming 2027)

23 Pages Posted: Last revised: 21 Sep 2026
Michael L. Smith
University of Oklahoma - College of Law

Date Written: September 21, 2026

Abstract
In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court set forth a two-step analysis for adjudicating Second Amendment challenges. At step one, courts are to consider whether the behavior the challenged law restricts falls under the Second Amendment’s plain text. If it does, courts should proceed to step two, where the burden is on the government to demonstrate that the law is consistent with a historical tradition of analogous firearm restrictions. Proving such a tradition is difficult, and results remain unpredictable. Governments and courts hoping to avoid such a historical quagmire might be inclined to decide cases at the first step of the analysis by concluding that a case involves individuals, activities, or arms beyond the Second Amendment’s plain text. One might think that the Court would be receptive to such arguments, as it has emphasized the importance of the original meaning of the Second Amendment’s text in its early cases.

One would be wrong. The Court’s latest rulings in United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez render Bruen’s first step illusory. In Hemani, the Court bypassed the first step, concluding it had been conceded. More significantly, in Wolford, the Court relied on a prolonged hypothetical analysis of conduct the law at issue might burden, and limited consideration of historical evidence to the second step of the analysis where the burden is on the government to prove up a historical tradition that grounds the modern restriction. If such analysis is enough to overcome Bruen’s step one, just about anything will.

This development demonstrates the Court’s unwillingness to engage with original public meaning—an approach that Justices and scholars frequently proclaim to be…
1379
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 19/09/2026
#ICYMI
030
Reposted by Jake Charles
Mike Sacks @mikesacks.bsky.social · 19/09/2026
Trump’s DOJ says it will not enforce the federal law barring gun sales to 18-20 year olds because it violates the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS has so far declined every opportunity to resolve the circuit split. www.justice.gov/olc/media/14...
(Slip Opinion)
Application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) to
Young Adults
prevents young adults, who are members of "the people" to whom the Second
Nation's tradition of firearm regulation, which it cannot do.
September 17, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Our laws deem an eighteen-year-old "mature enough to be drafted, vote, serve as a juror, and be sentenced to deathại One such eighteen-year-old represented the United States at the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, shooting skeet? Yet, due to statutes predicated on concerns over an eighteen-year-old's ability to handle a pistol as a responsible adult, it would have been a federal felony if a licensed dealer had sold her such a firearm before she left or after she returned to her studies at the University of Texas at Arlington. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1). You have asked whether that restriction may be enforced against otherwise law-abiding citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty who seek to purchase a handgun consistent with the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and
"fleshed out," Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032, 2043 (2026), in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). It may not. Section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns to a class of law-abiding adults who, in nearly every other relevant respect, are members of the political community.In sum, because the modern federal age restrictions limit young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty from obtaining arms, they "fall[] within the plain text of the Second Amendment" and are "presumptively unconstitutional." Wolford, 146 S. Ct. at 2044. As we have not identified
"any analogue or collection of analogues" that "is 'relevantly similar' to the modern law," our view is that the government is unable to overcome this presumption. Id. (quoting Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2132).
In reaching this conclusion, we are aware that we are not writing on a
government (state or federal) to bar young adults from obtaining firearms has deeply divided members of the federal bench. 42 Having carefully considered these courts' decisions, we do not think that their reasons for reaching a contrary conclusion under Bruen can be reconciled with the Court's intervening clarifications in Hemani and Wolford. 4 Thus, we do
advice it gives you as you assist the President in the performance of his independent constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II, § 3; see also Application of the Rehabilita-
Patients with Severe Mental Illness or Disabilities, 50 Op. O.L.C. _, at
*12 (June 18, 2026); Section 1715 at *14; cf. Eric S. Fish, Prosecutorial Constitutionalism, 90 S. Cal. L. Rev. 237, 254 (2017) (noting that "a number of important constitutional rights go underenforced by judges"_and
42 Compare Reese, 127 F.4th 583 (invalidating the federal age restrictions at issue here), Worth, 108 F.4th 677 (invalidating Minnesota's age-based public-carry re-
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, 121 F.4th 96 (sustaining Colorado's age-based purchase restrictions).
1687.that Executive Branch officials should "supplement judges' enforcement
ing processesằ_.
We conclude by noting, however, a few limits on this opinion. For ex-ample, we do not address the age-neutral conditions and qualifications on commercial sales, the prohibition on the possession of handguns by those under eighteen, 18 U.S.C. § 922(x), or even the enhanced investigative period Congress has prescribed for purchasers under twenty-one, id.
§ 922(t) (1)(C); see also generally McRorey v. Garland, 99 F.4th 831 (5th Cir. 2024). And nothing in this opinion should be read to cast doubt on the distinct prohibitions of section 922(g), certain of which the Supreme Court has recently discussed with approval. See Hemani, 146 S. Ct. at 1692 n.6.
tion as it applies to sales to persons under eighteen, who-though part of
"the people" for the purposes of the Constitution-may constitutionally be subject to certain legal disabilities until they reach the age of majority,
Part II.B.2; cf. Paxton, 145 S. Ct. at 2300.
Instead, we conclude only that section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns, the
"quintessential self-defense weapon," Heller, 554 U.S. at 629, to a class
of the political community.
T. ELLIOT GAISER
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
43120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 18/09/2026
NEW: I have a more staid, in-depth look at the Second Amendment assault weapon case the Supreme Court will hear in December in this piece over at the Society for the Rule of Law Institute. 📝 chkbal.substack.com/p/the-suprem...
chkbal.substack.com
The Supreme Court’s Coming Assault Weapon Stress Test
The justices will grapple with the brittleness of Bruen’s past-bound test in the face of vast change
394
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
Can’t wait to read what you cook up on this!
010
Reposted by Jake Charles
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
Gift link to my @slate.com piece criticizing the assault weapon challengers' invocations of democracy. One response to the argument I make is that the Constn is the expression of We The People & so arguing to strike these laws isn't anti-democratic. Two points in reply 🧵 slate.com/news-and-pol...
slate.com
We Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term (Gift Article)
This fall, the Supreme Court will entertain a Second Amendment challenge to the prohibition of assault weapons in Viramontes v. Cook County.
177
Reposted by Jake Charles
Niko Bowie @nikobowie.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
Here's a gift link to our piece today in Slate
slate.com
John Roberts’ New Role Model Demonstrates Everything Wrong With the Supreme Court (Gift Article)
If the court is curling up anywhere, it is at the feet of a presidency increasingly unchecked by law.
0136
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
That's a bad misreading of history. It's also problematic bc it frames this as a dispute over who decides b/t "the people" (read gun owners) or judges. It's really a dispute b/t the people who want these guns & the people who want these laws. The challengers are the ones forcing *judges* to decide.
031
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
(2) Their argument is even sillier than that. They are not pleading for courts to protect "The People" of 1791's decision. They are literally & expressly arguing for judges to overrule the decisions of today's voters to protect the purchasing choices of TODAY'S GUN OWNERS. They say this repeatedly.
130
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
the challengers making the case for why these laws should be struck down under the Second Amendment. I won't pretend the question is excessively simple under Bruen. Just don't say you are doing it to protect decisions by "the people" against decisions by judges.
120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
in particular cases, but to the extent one defends the practice across the board, it seems to me it's got to be defended as justified despite its conflict w/ democracy (as the long-running debates over the "counter-majoritarian difficulty" have framed it). In other words, I don't begrudge
120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
(1) I don't really buy that on its own terms, for reasons that are too complex to outline here. The short version is that, except for some issues affecting the democratic process (like voting restrictions), the Court isn't enhancing democracy when it voids laws. Maybe you think that's good or bad
120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
Gift link to my @slate.com piece criticizing the assault weapon challengers' invocations of democracy. One response to the argument I make is that the Constn is the expression of We The People & so arguing to strike these laws isn't anti-democratic. Two points in reply 🧵 slate.com/news-and-pol...
slate.com
We Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term (Gift Article)
This fall, the Supreme Court will entertain a Second Amendment challenge to the prohibition of assault weapons in Viramontes v. Cook County.
177
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
hey i'm sure they would not mind being called winsome
120
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
New from me in @slate.com: the challengers who want to invalidate assault weapons ban cloak themselves in the language of democracy, but their goal is to undermine the people's right to govern, not preserve or protect it. 👇 slate.trib.al/qePXfCA
slate.trib.al
We Found the Most Galling Argument of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term
This fall, the Supreme Court will entertain a Second Amendment challenge to the prohibition of assault weapons in Viramontes v. Cook County.
275
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
Thanks, man!
010
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
Thank you! I always hoped to achieve this great honor!!
020
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
Am I the only one who gets embarrassed to be so enthusiastically congratulated on *standing up* after sitting for an excessively long time?? I mean, heck, I’ll take the praise where I can get it, but it still feels like a few rungs below a participation trophy.
150
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 15/09/2026
But the court suggests Wolford made ANY restriction encompassed within the plain text. I think that reading is wrong. It vastly expands the plain text inquiry beyond recognition. It means that ANY restriction on any subsidiary step toward keeping and bearing automatically implicates the plain text.
130
Jake Charles @jacobdcharles.bsky.social · 15/09/2026
the court notes that other circuits have gone further--requiring "meaningful constraints" on the ability to acquire a weapon for a law to implicate the plain text of "keep[ing]". That approach is the one I argued was the best approach in the piece the court cited: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
120