The devastating toll of gun violence has given rise to hundreds of lawsuits seeking justice on behalf of victims and their families. A significant number of challenges against gun companies, however, are blocked by courts' broad reading of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) - a federal statute often interpreted to shield the gun industry from civil liability. This article reexamines PLCAA in light of the Supreme Court's recent federalism caselaw, which counsels courts to narrowly construe federal laws that could otherwise upset the balance of power between states and the federal government. Since PLCAA infringes on traditional areas of state authority, the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence requires lower courts to interpret PLCAA narrowly, to not bar states from imposing negligence, nuisance, product liability, or other common law liability on gun companies. Reading PLCAA in line with federalism principles would preserve states' traditional authority over their civil justice laws, and enable gun violence victims, and their families, to hold gun companies responsible for wrongdoing.This article assesses the origins and spread of the Second Amendment sanctuary movement in which localities pass ordinances or resolutions that declare their jurisdiction's view that proposed or enacted state (or federal) gun safety laws are unconstitutional and therefore, local officials will not implement or enforce them. While it is important to assess Second Amendment sanctuaries from a legal perspective, it is equally as important to understand them in the context of a broader protest movement against any efforts to strengthen gun laws. As the gun violence prevention movement has gained strength across the United States, particularly at the state level, gun rights enthusiasts have turned to Second Amendment sanctuaries in order to create a counter narrative to the increasing political power of gun safety. By passing these ordinances or resolutions, local officials legitimize and fuel Second Amendment absolutism which poses real risks to public safety and democracy.This article describes why a constitutional test that relies exclusively on history and tradition for deciding modern firearm regulations is woefully inadequate when applied to modern technologies. It explains the unique advancements in firearm technology - specifically, ghost guns - that challenge the viability of a purely historical test, even if legal scholars or judges attempt to reason by analogy. This article argues that the prevailing, two-step approach, which incorporates both history and tradition, and requires a judicial examination of the purposes and methods supporting a challenged firearm regulation, should apply nationwide. That a dissenting faction of conservative judges seeks to ignore the prevailing approach presents a potentially dangerous path for Second Amendment jurisprudence. This article draws from certain historical gun laws to illustrate the difficult legwork that analogies must do under a purely historical test. It uses the advent of ghost guns as a case study to offer guidance for judges in their rulemaking practices regarding Second Amendment cases.This commentary responds to and problematizes Kimmel and Rowe's approach in "A Behavioral Addiction Model of Revenge, Violence, and Gun Abuse." By advancing an addiction model of retaliatory violence, Kimmel and Rowe medicalize behavior that is better understood as a social problem rooted in structural inequality.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/bms-1166.html  Reframing violence in terms of individual pathology abstracts it from social context and risks obscuring the need for structural change. For poor urban communities of color, who are disproportionately impacted by gun violence, medicalizing violent behavior may fuel further marginalization and oppression.This qualitative study identifies police interactions with gun violence co-victims as a crucial, overlooked component of police unresponsiveness, particularly in minority communities where perceptions of police illegitimacy and legal estrangement are relatively high. Gun violence co-victims in three cities participated in online surveys, in which they described pervasive disregard by police in the aftermath of their loved ones' shooting victimization. We build on the checklist model that has improved public safety outcomes in other complex, high-intensity professional contexts to propose a checklist for police detectives to follow in the aftermath of gun violence. To build the checklist, we also reviewed the general orders of five police departments to better understand what guidance, if any, is currently given to police personnel regarding how they should interact with gun violence victims.Rates of firearm injury and mortality are far higher in the United States compared to other high-income nations. Patterns of firearm injury have complex causal pathways; different social contexts may be differentially affected by firearm legislation. In the context of the diversity of social, political, and legal approaches at the state level, we suggest the application of the social ecological model as a conceptual public health framework to guide future policy interventions in the U.S.A nationally representative survey of 2000 American adults shows broad support for prohibiting gun-possession on private land without the landowner's explicit permission. Many states have laws which permit concealed weapon carry unless explicitly prohibited by the landowner, but our survey suggests statistically-significant majorities would prefer "no carry" defaults with regard to homeowners, employers, and retailers. While respondents who are Republican, male, or gun owners are more likely to support "carry" defaults, we find that the majoritarian rejection of "carry" defaults does not tend to vary by region or state. However, our survey does find majority support for a default right to possess guns in rented property and on an employer's parking lot. Respondents across all contexts also report substantial ignorance or misinformation about the law. Landowners who don't know or mistakenly believe that concealed carry is, by default, prohibited on their land may be less able to protect themselves by explicitly prohibiting such third-party possession.