If You Replace the 13 Arrows on the U.S. Great Seal with a Modern Rifle, Make Sure You Depict a 50-Round Magazine

Reason Magazine · collected 2026-09-06 · by Eugene Volokh
Read the original at Reason Magazine ↗

Summary

A law professor from The Volokh Conspiracy website discusses whether it is legal for Rep. Eric Burlison's website to display a graphic of the Great Seal with an AR-15 style weapon replacing the quiver of arrows, arguing that it is protected by the First Amendment. The professor cites Spence v. Washington (1974) as precedent for allowing modification of the flag and seal for personal expression. No specific numbers or statistics are mentioned in the article. The author's opinion piece presents a libertarian perspective on the matter, with the goal of defending Burlison's use of the modified Great Seal.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-06, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
5
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
0%
0 of 5 hedged
Leaning
withheld
no quote in the article backed the model's score
Publisher trust
87.9
red-flag proxy, not a credibility rating
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-09-06 · how these are computed

AI analysis (generated at analysis time, not now)

Story summary

Rep. Eric Burlison's website features a graphic that replaces the quiver of arrows on the U.S. Great Seal with an AR-15 style weapon, according to a report by KY3 news channel. The image is similar to the official Great Seal, which has 13 arrows in its design, but the modern rifle depicted in the graphic has a 50-round magazine. Law professor Eugene Volokh argues that displaying such an updated version of the seal is protected by the First Amendment, citing the case of Spence v. Washington (1974), where it was ruled that even attaching a peace symbol to the American flag is allowed. This means that Burlison's graphic is likely legally permissible, but Volokh notes that there may be exceptions for impersonation or fraud.

Written for “U.S. National Symbol Reimagined” on 2026-09-07, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The model judged this article politically coded and scored it +0.35, but none of the 1 quote(s) it offered could be found in the article text, so the score is not published.
Written under an earlier scoring contract, which gave a paragraph rather than checkable quotes. Re-analysing this article replaces it.
Leaning score withheld for article 5637: no verified evidence · logged 2026-09-06

Story

📰 U.S. National Symbol Reimagined
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event. This is the one the site leads with.

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.

Publisher

Reason Magazine · 48 article(s) · 1 correction(s) detected
SignalValueWeight
Correction rate 0.021 0.4
Uncertainty density 0.131 0.25
Assertive mismatch rate 0.000 0.35
Running correction rate · 1 correction(s)
2026-09-05
Lawyers' Responsibility for Hallucinations in Briefs That They Sign

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
29 article(s) here · 0 carrying a prediction
🔮 The court concluded that, even "assuming arguendo that there's a fair chance that the press defendants have violated the federal and state trade secrets provisions," the First Amendment would preclude the TRO:
🔮 Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From the docket this morning; for more on the case, see here and here (the latter item notes the sealing, and expresses the now-realized hope that "the motion will be unsealed at some point soon"): Via email, Plaintiff has informed the Court that it will not be pursuing preliminary injunctive relief….
🔮 Perhaps most analogously to alienation of affections, if Alan breaches his contract with Betty, and Cathy encouraged him to breach it, she will in many situations be liable for intentional interference with contract.
2026-09-06 · assertive framing · Alienation of Affections as Complicity
🔮 In a phone call on March 2, Gelb told Netrebko to issue a statement specifically denouncing Putin, or she would be fired.
🔮 A malicious act "include[s] any intentional conduct that would probably affect the marital relationship.
🔮 If you have followed the factual allegations in the case, please post a comment and indicate how you would have voted if you were a juror, based on your knowledge (even if limited) of the factual allegations, and why you would have so voted.
🔮 As part of this mea culpa, Ms. Hall assured the court that she had taken the remedial measure of verifying that the remaining citations in the brief were legitimate authority and pledged that, going forward (presumably in her representation of other clients), she would not rely on any AI tool "for legal research without confirming each authority" or file anything that includes citations she has not independently verified.
🔮 Such a requirement would be impractical, unduly burdensome, and unnecessarily duplicative given the availability of reasonable alternative procedures to guard against erroneous citations.
🔮 If it were, then any profit-seeking news organization could face liability for its failure to investigate, contrary to the principle that a publisher is not "required to seek out contrary stories" to insulate itself from a finding of actual malice.
🔮 Under the rational basis standard, government conduct "is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest."
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-09-06 · Reason Magazine
Alienation of Affections as Complicity
2026-09-06 · Reason Magazine
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 29 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

AR-15 American KY3 Wikipedia the First Amendment

Subjects

KY3 ORG · 2× American NORP · 1× Eric Burlison PERSON · 1× Mozambique GPE · 1× Paul Adler PERSON · 1× Spence PERSON · 1× Washington ORG · 1× Wikipedia ORG · 1×

Narrative

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent As KY3 (Paul Adler) notes, "[a] graphic on [Rep.] Eric Burlison's website resembles the Great Seal but replaces the quiver of arrows with an AR-15 style weapon."
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-06

Claims (5 extracted, 0 hedged)

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent As KY3 (Paul Adler) notes, "[a] graphic on [Rep.] Eric Burlison's website resembles the Great Seal but replaces the quiver of arrows with an AR-15 style weapon." asserted
graphic → note → weapon
I say yes, for various reasons, but most importantly the First Amendment. asserted
I → say → reasons
The First Amendment protects the right to fly the American flag—that is to say, your own copy of the flag—with a peace symbol attached, see Spence v. Washington (1974). asserted
symbol → protect → Washington
Of course, it famously protects even the right to burn the flag. asserted
it → protect → flag
It likewise protects your right to display a copy of the great seal with some technological updating (unless, of course you're doing so to knowingly impersonate government officials or to otherwise defraud people in various ways). asserted
you → protect → ways
💬 Give feedback
🕘 History 🎫 Support