Duke’s Resident Anti-Gun Academic Tries to Rewrite SCOTUS’s ‘Common Use’ Test

April 14, 2026
9:25 pm

▶

Listen to Article

Duke University's Center for Firearms Law, that notorious hub of anti-2A academia, is at it again—this time with a fresh paper attempting to dismantle the Supreme Court's common use test from Heller and Bruen. Led by resident gun-grabber Jake Charles, the center argues that the test is too narrow, too rooted in historical tradition, and basically unworkable for modern regulations. They claim it ignores evolving societal needs, like banning assault weapons or standard-capacity magazines, by redefining common use to exclude arms that aren't universally owned or somehow sporting. It's a classic academic sleight-of-hand: dress up policy preferences as legal scholarship, cite cherry-picked data on ownership rates, and pretend SCOTUS got it wrong. Never mind that Heller explicitly protected arms in common use for lawful purposes precisely to shield self-defense staples from elite meddling. This isn't just ivory-tower navel-gazing; it's a direct assault on the Bruen framework that's already tying gun controllers in knots. Post-Bruen, courts have struck down mag bans in California and elsewhere because AR-15s and 10+ round mags are undeniably in common use—over 20 million ARs owned nationwide, per NSSF data, with polls showing majority household penetration in many states. Duke's push reframes this as a flaw, urging judges to adopt a balancing test lite that weighs public safety against rights. Clever? Sure, if you're into undermining text, history, and tradition. But it's doomed: SCOTUS doubled down in Bruen, rejecting means-ends scrutiny for good reason—governments always claim the common good justifies disarming the people. For the 2A community, this is catnip for mobilization. It spotlights how academia fuels the gun-ban machine, from Rahimi amicus briefs to statehouse lobbying. Share this widely, call out the funding (hello, Bloomberg cash?), and remind folks: every scholarly rewrite is a preview of the next lawsuit or ballot initiative. Stay vigilant—these profs aren't debating theory; they're blueprints for confiscation. Bruen holds; common use endures. Lock, load, and litigate.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

Duke University’s Center for Firearms Law, that notorious hub of anti-2A academia, is at it again—this time with a fresh paper attempting to dismantle the Supreme Court’s common use test from Heller and Bruen. Led by resident gun-grabber Jake Charles, the center argues that the test is too narrow, too rooted in historical tradition, and basically unworkable for modern regulations. They claim it ignores evolving societal needs, like banning assault weapons or standard-capacity magazines, by redefining common use to exclude arms that aren’t universally owned or somehow sporting. It’s a classic academic sleight-of-hand: dress up policy preferences as legal scholarship, cite cherry-picked data on ownership rates, and pretend SCOTUS got it wrong. Never mind that Heller explicitly protected arms in common use for lawful purposes precisely to shield self-defense staples from elite meddling.

This isn’t just ivory-tower navel-gazing; it’s a direct assault on the Bruen framework that’s already tying gun controllers in knots. Post-Bruen, courts have struck down mag bans in California and elsewhere because AR-15s and 10+ round mags are undeniably in common use—over 20 million ARs owned nationwide, per NSSF data, with polls showing majority household penetration in many states. Duke’s push reframes this as a flaw, urging judges to adopt a balancing test lite that weighs public safety against rights. Clever? Sure, if you’re into undermining text, history, and tradition. But it’s doomed: SCOTUS doubled down in Bruen, rejecting means-ends scrutiny for good reason—governments always claim the common good justifies disarming the people.

For the 2A community, this is catnip for mobilization. It spotlights how academia fuels the gun-ban machine, from Rahimi amicus briefs to statehouse lobbying. Share this widely, call out the funding (hello, Bloomberg cash?), and remind folks: every scholarly rewrite is a preview of the next lawsuit or ballot initiative. Stay vigilant—these profs aren’t debating theory; they’re blueprints for confiscation. Bruen holds; common use endures. Lock, load, and litigate.

Share this story