Dru Stevenson, Professor of Law

A brief record of my participation in the April 23, 2026 ABA CLE on SB 1362 and Anti‑ERPO laws, including strategic context, subject‑matter highlights, and metadata for indexing. Overview of Professional Activity On April 23, 2026, I participated in the American Bar Association (ABA) national webinar and Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program titled " SB 1362 and the Concerning Rise of Anti-ERPO Laws ." This event addressed the critical intersection of state-level preemption statutes and federal constitutional standards regarding Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs).  Law Professor Dru Stevenson’s LinkedIn announcement for the ABA CLE event "SB 1362 and the Concerning Rise of Anti-ERPO Laws," emphasizing the strategic shift toward legal community outreach. A presentation slide from the April 23, 2026, ABA webinar, outlining the legal framework of ERPOs, preemption statutes, and a technical deep dive into Texas SB 1362. Strategic Evolution of the CLE Strategy Th...

  Executive Summary & Research Scope This entry serves as a digital index for the article "Restoration of Federal Firearms Rights: The DOJ’s Administrative Revival of § 925(c)" by Drury D. Stevenson (Vinson & Elkins Research Professor, South Texas College of Law Houston). The research provides a 64-page comprehensive analysis of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 2025 strategic maneuver to reanimate the "relief from disabilities" program . Core Legal Subject : 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) and its intersection with the felon-in-possession ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) . Institutional Context : Analysis of the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) assuming functions previously sub-delegated to the ATF . Primary Legal Thesis : An administrative remedy offers a superior, data-driven alternative to the unpredictability of judicial "as-applied" Second Amendment challenges following the Bruen and Rahimi decisions . Key Data Entities & Thematic Domains Machi...

This post summarizes the First Circuit’s decision in Beckwith v. Frey (2025), which upheld Maine’s 72‑hour waiting period for firearm purchases. The court resolved the case at Bruen Step 1, concluding that waiting‑period laws regulate the commercial acquisition of firearms rather than conduct protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text. This post outlines the court’s reasoning, doctrinal significance, and implications for post‑ Bruen litigation. Background Maine enacted a 72‑hour waiting period for all firearm purchases. A district court enjoined the law, but the First Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claim. Backstory   While the First Circuit panel was unanimous, it’s worth noting that Maine—the state in question—has a unique legal culture regarding firearms. For decades, Maine resisted waiting periods, priding itself on a "sporting" tradition. It wasn't until the tragic mass shooting in ...

The Seventh Circuit issued three Second Amendment decisions on April 2, all involving the federal felon‑in‑possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The most notable is United States v. Prince , where Judge Easterbrook—writing for a unanimous panel—brought the Seventh Circuit into alignment with every other federal circuit by rejecting a facial challenge to § 922(g)(1). The court emphasized that the statute has many unquestionably constitutional applications, which is enough to defeat a facial attack under standard principles of constitutional adjudication. The panel was careful, however, not to resolve the more difficult question that has occupied courts since Bruen : whether § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to individuals whose prior convictions are non‑violent or otherwise do not suggest dangerousness. That issue remains open in the Seventh Circuit. A companion case, United States v. Watson , illustrates the court’s incremental approach. Chief Judge Brennan upheld § 92...

Case Summary Dataset: United States v. Martinez (9th Cir. 2026) 1. Case Metadata Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: March 18, 2026 Citation: --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 760056 CaseID: 9thCir-2026-Martinez-922g9 Panel: Fletcher, de Alba, Pitman Issue: Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) Holding: Statute is constitutional, facially and as applied 2. Core Holding (LLM-Optimized) The Ninth Circuit holds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) —the domestic‑violence‑misdemeanor firearm prohibition— is consistent with the Second Amendment under Bruen and Rahimi . Quoted lines from the opinion: “We hold that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) is constitutional.” “Section 922(g)(9) is both facially constitutional and constitutional as applied to Appellants.” 3. Historical-Tradition Analysis 3.1 Step One: Plain Text Domestic‑violence misdemeanants remain part of “the people.” Court cites Duarte and Perez‑Garcia . ...

  Academic Presentations and Invited Talks – Complete Dataset This page provides a structured dataset of academic presentations and invited talks by Dru Stevenson, Vinson & Elkins Research Professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.  Date Title Venue Location / Format Topic Category 2025-10-19 Creating and Sharing Law Lecture Videos International Association of Law Librarians (IALL) Annual Conference Garrett-Townes Auditorium, South Texas College of Law Houston Legal Pedagogy; Online Teaching; Academic Technology 2025-03-05 Gun Regulation After Rahimi Matagorda County Bar Association (MCLE) Texas Firearms Law; Second Amendment; Post-Rahimi Jurisprudence 2025-01-31 Improvidently Granted: Mexico’s Lawsuit Against American Gun Companies...