Explore the vast range of titles available.

In 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) into law, granting the firearms industry near-perfect legal immunity. PLCAA shifted the risk of firearm production, distribution, marketing, and injuries to the public. Two decades ago, mass shootings were anomalies. Today, they are alarmingly common. From 2021 to 2023, the United States averaged 663 yearly mass shootings, and from 2004 to 2022, active shooter events spiked 1,150%. The larger gun violence epidemic now costs taxpayers over $550 billion annually, forcing Congress to seek solutions with increasing desperation. However, new state laws and lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers are beginning to erode this armor as courts link the arms trade’s behavior to the crisis. Firearm distribution, unlike ownership, is not a Second Amendment right, and immunity’s collateral socio-economic damage is more evident than ever. The tide is turning. Corporations should be accountable for the costs of their business models, as reflected in every other American sector. This Comment introduces a novel Blueprint to modernize a deregulated market of dangerous, inelastic goods. Its approach is simple: shift some mass shooting risk to industry giants, termed “Big Gun.” Prong One proposes a partial repeal of PLCAA, exposing manufacturers to mass shooting liability. Prong Two presents an insurance framework to maximize profitable manufacturer operations within the new risk landscape. Prong Three urges Congress to—constitutionally—create and institute a “Mass Shooting Court,” transferring mass shooting litigation claims for hybrid Article I administrative agency adjudication. As manufacturers reform their marketing and distribution practices that are currently linked to mass shootings, Mass Shooting Court judgments may decrease, resulting in lower insurance premiums. Executing the Blueprint would help reverse the course of the gun violence epidemic, preserve Second Amendment rights, and advance long-term industry interests.

The American juvenile court system does not recognize a right to a jury trial. It should. The juvenile court system was born out of the Progressive Era, a period of social and political change in the U.S. Its creators envisioned a system that cared for children and considered which individual treatment would suit each child in the system. However, the actual history of the juvenile court did not follow this idealistic vision. To combat the punitive system into which juvenile court had evolved, the Supreme Court decided in subsequent years that children deserve the due process rights recognized in adult criminal court: the right to counsel, notice, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof. The Court reasoned that because the juvenile court does not act all that differently from the adult criminal court, the same rights afforded to adults should be afforded to children. Despite upholding the above rights for juveniles, the Court has expressly rejected the jury trial right in the juvenile court. However, states should still elect to provide jury trials in their juvenile courts. Juries would give the juvenile court system more legitimacy, protect children from bias, and ensure that the juvenile court system has fair processes and appropriate punishments.