A term paper written in 2022 tracing the constitutional history of the Second Amendment through the Supreme Court’s own words.
It sits alongside the deliberative work for a reason. The public realm where that dialogue happens, the space Arendt names in the essay next door, has to be kept open and secure before anyone can act in it. This paper takes up one of the oldest questions about how: what keeps the public realm safe enough for free people to speak in it at all?
The essay walks through the five decisions that have shaped how the right to keep and bear arms is understood: United States v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), United States v. Miller (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). Along the way it lays out the strongest arguments on both sides, the prefatory-versus-operative-clause debate, the militia question, incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the old tension between order and liberty, before landing on its own reading.
That reading is an individual-rights one: “the people” means something broader than “the militia,” and the right extends to self-defense, as Heller and McDonald affirmed. But it also takes Miller seriously, agreeing that not every weapon falls under the Amendment’s protection and that military-style arms are a reasonable limit. The paper’s throughline is that the Court has, again and again, upheld and sharpened the right rather than narrowing it.
Correction: the paper describes Cruikshank as a 5–4 ruling; it was in fact unanimous. It also refers to “Clark McReynolds,” whose full name was James Clark McReynolds. Both are noted here for accuracy; the original text is preserved in full on request.
Written for university coursework; presented here as academic work, not as a statement of personal political belief.
This is an unpublished student paper, so it’s available on request rather than as a public download. Email me and I’ll send it over.
Patrick McCabe 