Joseph Blocher

Argues that Second Amendment doctrine can and should incorporate the longstanding and sensible American tradition of regulating guns more strictly in cities than in rural areas.

Explores implications of federal policy that places certain restrictions on gun ownership for veterans.

Analyzes over one thousand court opinions on the Second Amendment since the DC v. Heller case was decided in 2008. Establishes empirically the nature of legal opinion on the Second Amendment in a changing constitutional environment.

Summarizes and analyzes the history of constitutional theory behind the Second Amendment, in the aftermath of the 2008 DC v. Heller Supreme Court case.

Analyzes "gun neutral" law and cases in civil and criminal law where firearms are an incidental part of alleged conduct.

Analyzes the constitutional basis for "nonsense" speech acts in the context of First Amendment protections. Finds that meaningful and meaningless speech are intertwined, and that how words are used are important, not just how they relate to concepts beyond the words themselves.

Argues that the Second Amendment should be read to encompass both the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense AND the right to protect oneself by avoiding them altogether, and shows what implications the latter right may have.

Argues that the State Attorneys General who advocated incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states owe more to popular constitutionalism than to federalism.

Uses free speech law to describe and predict what Heller’s categoricalism means for Second Amendment doctrine. Argues that the Court’s categorical line drawing creates intractable difficulties for Second Amendment doctrine and theory and that the majority’s categoricalism neither reflects nor enables a clear view of the Amendment’s underlying values, whatever they may be.