@article{ref1,
title="Regulating 3D-printed guns postHeller: why two steps are better than one",
journal="Journal of law, medicine and ethics",
year="2020",
author="Talbot, Thaddeus and Skaggs, Adam",
volume="48",
number="Suppl 4",
pages="98-104",
abstract="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.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1073-1105",
doi="10.1177/1073110520979407",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073110520979407"
}