Here is how Trump judges rule on guns

Federal judges appointed by Republicans are much more likely to decide in favor of the right to bear arms relative to appointees from Democratic administrations.

Researchers analyzed thousands of decisions related to the Second Amendment submitted by federal courts of appeals and district courts between 2000 and 2023. They found that 45% of decisions from judges appointed by President Donald Trump favored increased gun rights since two years ago, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Bruen case that government agencies must demonstrate that their firearm laws correspond to the national historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That share is higher than judges appointed by other Republicans: 36% of decisions from judges appointed by President Ronald Reagan, as well as 27% of decisions from appointees of Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, upheld gun rights.

Democrat judges are less likely to decide favorably: 20% of decisions from appointees of President Joe Biden, 17% of decisions from appointees of President Barack Obama, and 15% of decisions from appointees of President Bill Clinton upheld gun rights.

The analysis asserted that federal judges appointed by Trump are more likely to favor the Second Amendment because they were taking the opportunity presented by Bruen to signal to Trump that they support his agenda, thereby increasing their odds for a future promotion under another Republican administration. Bruen may have amplified careerism, in the form of promotion effects, the paper claimed.

The share of cases decided in favor of the Second Amendment has been trending upward over the past two decades: only 4% of reported decisions before the Supreme Court decision in the Heller case favored gun rights, which rose to 20% of decisions after Heller and 27% of decisions after Bruen. Yet unreported cases not published in a regional or federal book of cases are less likely to be decided for gun rights.

Members of the Supreme Court were recently able to apply the conclusions of Bruen to the Rahimi case, which ultimately upheld a federal law that bars people under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Justice Brett Kavanaugh contended in a concurring opinion that Bruen effectively imposes a neutral and democratically infused constraint on judicial decisionmaking.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a lone dissenting opinion that the federal law in question does not require a finding that a person has ever committed a crime of domestic violence and is not triggered by a criminal conviction, meaning that gun owners can be effectively stripped of their weapons without due process: In the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subset of society, todays decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.

Gun Pulse is a brand-new conservative publication devoted entirely to the Second Amendment, from political battles over the right to keep and bear arms, to opinion and commentary pieces, to equipment reviews, and much more.