Jake Charles
@jacobdcharles.bsky.social
Law prof, Pepperdine Law; Affiliated Scholar, Duke Center for Firearms Law. I write about constitutional law, especially the Second Amendment.
Bio: https://t.co/yVUcs14NoK
Papers: http://bit.ly/3HleQND
Bio: https://t.co/yVUcs14NoK
Papers: http://bit.ly/3HleQND
Pinned
Jake Charles
@jacobdcharles.bsky.social
· May 27
🧵 Exciting to have my new Penn Law Review piece on Ancillary Rights published! Many thanks to lots of people for feedback & criticism, esp. @danielrice.bsky.social for helping organize my thoughts.
The piece unpacks how & when rights extend to related conduct--
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
The piece unpacks how & when rights extend to related conduct--
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
The whole thread from @anthonymkreis.bsky.social is spot on. This particular point reminds me of a prominent libertarian scholar I once heard on a podcast explaining his involvement in a high-profile case. He said he got involved--on an issue he admitted he hadn't researched too closely previously--
We start with a historical question. We read secondary materials. We go to the primary sources. We think. We build, we engage, perhaps we eventually dissent from consensus— but there’s a process. We don’t just gather our things and write. He straight up admits that he doesn’t have any methods.
January 18, 2026 at 10:49 PM
The whole thread from @anthonymkreis.bsky.social is spot on. This particular point reminds me of a prominent libertarian scholar I once heard on a podcast explaining his involvement in a high-profile case. He said he got involved--on an issue he admitted he hadn't researched too closely previously--
💯
So, in short, I don’t feel like playing the victim card is remotely justifiable. He wanted the attention. It’s not law professors’ fault that he took the approach he did and got the heat accordingly. Nothing against him personally, but this whining is what’s academically unbecoming.
January 18, 2026 at 9:27 PM
💯
In my 2nd Am seminar we discuss James Forman’s insight that “a gun may be the only dangerous item that can plausibly be viewed as a solution to the very danger it presents.” Yet research suggests more guns do not make it safer—& that can be esp true when the gun can be used to justify deadly force.
If you’re going on ICE watch, please please please do not carry a gun. They have more guns. You will not win and they are looking for a reason. Just follow and observe and alert
Arm yourself. I really hate that
I’m thinking about becoming a gun person.
I’m thinking about becoming a gun person.
January 17, 2026 at 10:47 PM
In my 2nd Am seminar we discuss James Forman’s insight that “a gun may be the only dangerous item that can plausibly be viewed as a solution to the very danger it presents.” Yet research suggests more guns do not make it safer—& that can be esp true when the gun can be used to justify deadly force.
Reposted by Jake Charles
There is a feed for call for papers related to law. It's mostly used for events outside the US. More people in the US should use it. A tip of the hat to @jacobdcharles.bsky.social, who recently posted about the Firearms Law Works-in-Progress conference there. bsky.app/profile/did:...
January 17, 2026 at 10:13 PM
There is a feed for call for papers related to law. It's mostly used for events outside the US. More people in the US should use it. A tip of the hat to @jacobdcharles.bsky.social, who recently posted about the Firearms Law Works-in-Progress conference there. bsky.app/profile/did:...
How often can you read amicus briefs from colleagues at the same law school arguing for opposite sides in the same case?? Check out Joel’s super interesting brief urging the Court not to even reach the 2nd Am q.
My amicus brief (w/ other 2A scholars) is here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
My amicus brief (w/ other 2A scholars) is here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
January 15, 2026 at 8:59 PM
How often can you read amicus briefs from colleagues at the same law school arguing for opposite sides in the same case?? Check out Joel’s super interesting brief urging the Court not to even reach the 2nd Am q.
My amicus brief (w/ other 2A scholars) is here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
My amicus brief (w/ other 2A scholars) is here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...
Call for Papers for the annual Duke/Wyoming Firearms Law Works-in-Progress Conference! This fun conference has grown mightily over the years. If your work intersects with guns (or nongun weapons!) at all, you should submit!
firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/01/of-i...
firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/01/of-i...
January 13, 2026 at 11:19 PM
Call for Papers for the annual Duke/Wyoming Firearms Law Works-in-Progress Conference! This fun conference has grown mightily over the years. If your work intersects with guns (or nongun weapons!) at all, you should submit!
firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/01/of-i...
firearmslaw.duke.edu/2026/01/of-i...
Reposted by Jake Charles
Postdoc at Wesleyan Center for the Study of Guns and Society focused on "religion and firearms as part of a pilot project titled 'Moving Past God and Guns: Strengthening Scholarly and Public Understanding of the Intersection of Guns and Religion'.”
Deadline: March 1. 2026
Deadline: March 1. 2026
CSGS Hiring Postdoctoral Faculty Researcher - CSGS | Center for the Study of Guns & Society
CSGS Seeks Postdoctoral PhD with Expertise in Religion and Firearms CSGS is honored to be awarded a grant from the Henry Luce Foundation to hire a postdoctoral faculty researcher with...
gunsandsocietycenter.com
January 13, 2026 at 12:09 AM
Postdoc at Wesleyan Center for the Study of Guns and Society focused on "religion and firearms as part of a pilot project titled 'Moving Past God and Guns: Strengthening Scholarly and Public Understanding of the Intersection of Guns and Religion'.”
Deadline: March 1. 2026
Deadline: March 1. 2026
Pretty convinced there are few things more sublime than reading about the Constitution while watching the sun set over the water.
Still can’t believe I get to do this for a living.
Still can’t believe I get to do this for a living.
January 13, 2026 at 1:13 AM
Pretty convinced there are few things more sublime than reading about the Constitution while watching the sun set over the water.
Still can’t believe I get to do this for a living.
Still can’t believe I get to do this for a living.
At a time when the Constitution feels especially brittle, I'm lucky--& ridiculously excited--to get to teach a new reading group this semester on constitutional theory, in which we will tackle some foundational questions about our foundational commitments. First two days are already stacked ⬇️⬇️
January 12, 2026 at 1:54 AM
At a time when the Constitution feels especially brittle, I'm lucky--& ridiculously excited--to get to teach a new reading group this semester on constitutional theory, in which we will tackle some foundational questions about our foundational commitments. First two days are already stacked ⬇️⬇️
In Torts, one of the paradigm cases we use for teaching an “offensive touching” battery is grabbing something out of a person’s hands. An intentional contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity is ordinarily all that’s needed to sustain such a claim.
law.justia.com/cases/texas/...
law.justia.com/cases/texas/...
January 10, 2026 at 8:02 PM
In Torts, one of the paradigm cases we use for teaching an “offensive touching” battery is grabbing something out of a person’s hands. An intentional contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity is ordinarily all that’s needed to sustain such a claim.
law.justia.com/cases/texas/...
law.justia.com/cases/texas/...
I am reminded tonight of the last chapter in Alison LaCroix’s new book on the Interbellum Constitution about how brave individuals in northern states valiantly resisted immoral federal efforts to disappear members of the community pursuant to the Fugitive Slave Law. A history worth remembering.
January 8, 2026 at 5:26 AM
I am reminded tonight of the last chapter in Alison LaCroix’s new book on the Interbellum Constitution about how brave individuals in northern states valiantly resisted immoral federal efforts to disappear members of the community pursuant to the Fugitive Slave Law. A history worth remembering.
Exactly, exactly right. We have never in our history had a president who has so abhorred half of the people he’s supposed to represent or so disdained the concept of constitutional (or moral) limits on his exercise of power. We’re in an unimaginably bad place.
It’s hard to believe that one man can cause so much stress, so much fear, so much pain and suffering…a man who took an oath to preserve and protect our Constitution. This man, who is inciting terror across our land, must be removed from office. In a sane world, it would happen immediately.
January 8, 2026 at 3:36 AM
Exactly, exactly right. We have never in our history had a president who has so abhorred half of the people he’s supposed to represent or so disdained the concept of constitutional (or moral) limits on his exercise of power. We’re in an unimaginably bad place.
Here's the case for those interested: caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th...
January 7, 2026 at 7:06 PM
Here's the case for those interested: caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th...
Had a fun time this morning on a hot topic panel at #AALS2026 on open issues in Second Amendment law!
I think it’s fair to say that despite disagreement on some things, all of us panelists thought both that Bruen is too vague & that we prob won’t get too much more clarity in the pending 2A cases.
I think it’s fair to say that despite disagreement on some things, all of us panelists thought both that Bruen is too vague & that we prob won’t get too much more clarity in the pending 2A cases.
January 7, 2026 at 4:17 PM
Had a fun time this morning on a hot topic panel at #AALS2026 on open issues in Second Amendment law!
I think it’s fair to say that despite disagreement on some things, all of us panelists thought both that Bruen is too vague & that we prob won’t get too much more clarity in the pending 2A cases.
I think it’s fair to say that despite disagreement on some things, all of us panelists thought both that Bruen is too vague & that we prob won’t get too much more clarity in the pending 2A cases.
Reposted by Jake Charles
It was an honor to receive the Emerging Scholar Award from the AALS Legislation Section — especially while seated next to Bill Eskridge and Mary Ann Bernard (Phil Frickey’s widow).
Thanks @kevintobia.bsky.social for the kind words about my work.
Thanks @kevintobia.bsky.social for the kind words about my work.
January 7, 2026 at 3:39 AM
It was an honor to receive the Emerging Scholar Award from the AALS Legislation Section — especially while seated next to Bill Eskridge and Mary Ann Bernard (Phil Frickey’s widow).
Thanks @kevintobia.bsky.social for the kind words about my work.
Thanks @kevintobia.bsky.social for the kind words about my work.
Reposted by Jake Charles
With all that is going on in the world, it might be easy to overlook that the D.C. Circuit appears to have changed its Special Panel (aka Motions Panel) so that it's no longer in place for a month.
I think this change is both really important and really good.
(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )
I think this change is both really important and really good.
(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )
January 6, 2026 at 4:31 PM
With all that is going on in the world, it might be easy to overlook that the D.C. Circuit appears to have changed its Special Panel (aka Motions Panel) so that it's no longer in place for a month.
I think this change is both really important and really good.
(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )
I think this change is both really important and really good.
(A quick courts 🧵 . . . )
Another bad sign of the times. More of the alarming maybe-non-citizens-don’t-have-rights ponderings from a Trump appointee.
CA9 rejects challenge to the fed law banning firearm possession for undocumented immigrants, assuming without deciding that undocumented are among “the people” under the 2A.
Trump judge concurs, sides with CA5 to say undocumented are not among “the people.” cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
Trump judge concurs, sides with CA5 to say undocumented are not among “the people.” cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
![BUMATAY, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:
The Second Amendment declares that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. By its plain text, the Second Amendment protects only "the people." But who are "the people" entitled to the Second Amendment right?
Does "the people" include aliens "illegally or unlawfully in the United States"-the basis for prosecution under 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A)?
The per curiam opinion assumes illegal aliens are part of the "people" but concludes that our historical tradition justifies disarming them. I analyze the question differently.
Based on the Second Amendment's text, I would hold that
"the people" refers only to "members of the [Nation's] political community," District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 580 (2008), which categorically excludes illegal aliens. Thus, § 922(g)(5)(A) prosecutions don't implicate the Constitution's "plain text" and are not subject to a Second Amendment challenge. See N. Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:beirch5u3d3ybvuct27mtyxd/bafkreic43hswiega4dpg5igrlm4ugzf32fr7k4tvyzhnyt2uylylq77zju@jpeg)
January 5, 2026 at 3:03 AM
Another bad sign of the times. More of the alarming maybe-non-citizens-don’t-have-rights ponderings from a Trump appointee.
True true - SCOTUS will just follow the plain text, applying what it has called the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command” without fear or favor.
I know where this is going
SCOTUS using this as vehicle to enact 2A right to machine gun possession
SCOTUS using this as vehicle to enact 2A right to machine gun possession
So much that's dumbfounding about this morning's news about abducting a foreign president but I'm focused on charging them with both Possession of Machineguns and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns.
x.com/i/status/200...
x.com/i/status/200...
January 3, 2026 at 5:25 PM
True true - SCOTUS will just follow the plain text, applying what it has called the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command” without fear or favor.
Two other noteworthy aspects that I didn't highlight in the thread: the majority spends a lot of time arguing that (1) this case is a "straightforward" kind that doesn't require use of analogies & (2) this fact pattern calls for a low level of generality in comparing the past. Both are wrong.
NEW: Creating a circuit split, a 9th Cir panel decrees that CA's ban on openly carrying firearms violates the Second Amendment.
The 2-1 panel decision is written by Trump-appointee Judge VanDyke, possibly the most extreme federal circuit judge in 2A cases.
fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldoc...
The 2-1 panel decision is written by Trump-appointee Judge VanDyke, possibly the most extreme federal circuit judge in 2A cases.
fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldoc...
January 3, 2026 at 12:00 AM
Two other noteworthy aspects that I didn't highlight in the thread: the majority spends a lot of time arguing that (1) this case is a "straightforward" kind that doesn't require use of analogies & (2) this fact pattern calls for a low level of generality in comparing the past. Both are wrong.
NEW: Creating a circuit split, a 9th Cir panel decrees that CA's ban on openly carrying firearms violates the Second Amendment.
The 2-1 panel decision is written by Trump-appointee Judge VanDyke, possibly the most extreme federal circuit judge in 2A cases.
fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldoc...
The 2-1 panel decision is written by Trump-appointee Judge VanDyke, possibly the most extreme federal circuit judge in 2A cases.
fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldoc...
January 2, 2026 at 11:34 PM
NEW: Creating a circuit split, a 9th Cir panel decrees that CA's ban on openly carrying firearms violates the Second Amendment.
The 2-1 panel decision is written by Trump-appointee Judge VanDyke, possibly the most extreme federal circuit judge in 2A cases.
fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldoc...
The 2-1 panel decision is written by Trump-appointee Judge VanDyke, possibly the most extreme federal circuit judge in 2A cases.
fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldoc...
So far as I know, Ilan Wurman does not have a Bluesky account & I no longer have an X account, so I find it funny to think we both have friends sending us the posts talking about one another.
I don’t know him personally, but I sort of find it silly to deny his original post was framed - as one
I don’t know him personally, but I sort of find it silly to deny his original post was framed - as one
December 30, 2025 at 11:11 PM
So far as I know, Ilan Wurman does not have a Bluesky account & I no longer have an X account, so I find it funny to think we both have friends sending us the posts talking about one another.
I don’t know him personally, but I sort of find it silly to deny his original post was framed - as one
I don’t know him personally, but I sort of find it silly to deny his original post was framed - as one
Reposted by Jake Charles
This is con artist constitutionalism. One weird trick they don’t want you to know about. As if no one until now has ever considered whether Congress can fund highways
I regret to inform you there’s a new post telling us we’re rubes who’ve missed the obvious & clear meaning of the Const’n for a century.
This is the type of post you make when your goal is to juice engagement from those who want nothing more than to be told their policy goals are const’l commands.
This is the type of post you make when your goal is to juice engagement from those who want nothing more than to be told their policy goals are const’l commands.
December 30, 2025 at 2:51 PM
This is con artist constitutionalism. One weird trick they don’t want you to know about. As if no one until now has ever considered whether Congress can fund highways
I regret to inform you there’s a new post telling us we’re rubes who’ve missed the obvious & clear meaning of the Const’n for a century.
This is the type of post you make when your goal is to juice engagement from those who want nothing more than to be told their policy goals are const’l commands.
This is the type of post you make when your goal is to juice engagement from those who want nothing more than to be told their policy goals are const’l commands.
December 30, 2025 at 3:26 AM
I regret to inform you there’s a new post telling us we’re rubes who’ve missed the obvious & clear meaning of the Const’n for a century.
This is the type of post you make when your goal is to juice engagement from those who want nothing more than to be told their policy goals are const’l commands.
This is the type of post you make when your goal is to juice engagement from those who want nothing more than to be told their policy goals are const’l commands.
Saw Mike Lee’s execrable proposal a few days ago—it’s bad.
Sadly in line w/ the increasing momentum to expand private actors’ privilege to use violence. Darrell Miller & I wrote about this regrettable right-wing movement that we called “the new outlawry”
www.columbialawreview.org/content/the-...
Sadly in line w/ the increasing momentum to expand private actors’ privilege to use violence. Darrell Miller & I wrote about this regrettable right-wing movement that we called “the new outlawry”
www.columbialawreview.org/content/the-...
December 29, 2025 at 6:48 PM
Saw Mike Lee’s execrable proposal a few days ago—it’s bad.
Sadly in line w/ the increasing momentum to expand private actors’ privilege to use violence. Darrell Miller & I wrote about this regrettable right-wing movement that we called “the new outlawry”
www.columbialawreview.org/content/the-...
Sadly in line w/ the increasing momentum to expand private actors’ privilege to use violence. Darrell Miller & I wrote about this regrettable right-wing movement that we called “the new outlawry”
www.columbialawreview.org/content/the-...