The use of history in law is a time honoured tradition. Over the years the practise has assumed many forms to include historicism, intentionalism, interpretivist history, law office history, historical narrative and originalism. History, Originalism, and the Constitution picks up where past commentators have left off in this time honoured debate. The book weighs and considers the different historically based approaches to adjudicating constitutional questions, particularly originalism and asserts that history in law is only legitimate if it leads to accurate results. History, Originalism, and the Constitution then proposes an approach to accomplish the objectives of historical accuracy, objectivity and therefore legitimacy. Known as the historical guidepost approach, it respects historical methodologies, places text and events in total historical context, is honest about what the evidentiary record does and does not provide, mitigates judicial mythmaking and applies history as more of a guide to legal reasoning than a strict outcome determinative tool.

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. For the past half century, legal historians, analysts, judges and commentators have disagreed as to the original scope and intent of these words, making up the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Individual right theorists interpret it as protecting the personal privilege to own and carry firearms, while collective right theorists interpret it as only protecting the privilege of a collective society to bear arms in relation to militia service. This book examines the contentions of both groups and concludes that the amendment is meant only to protect the right of an individual to 'keep and bear arms' for the purpose of defending the country in a militia force against standing foreign or domestic armies. To interpret the amendment in any other way, the author argues, is to take its wording out of context and overextend a limited right that predated the Constitution and was essential to the founding of the nation. In crafting his argument, the author examines the Second Amendment in exacting detail, looking at its earliest drafts and its placement within the Bill of Rights, the state constitutional ratifying conventions, and judicial interpretations of the amendment through the landmark decision in 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller. The two final chapters examine the relationship between the Second Amendment and individual states, focusing specifically on the state of Ohio's 'right to bear arms' provisions provided in its 1802 constitution.

Today, gun control is one of the most polarizing topics in American politics. However, before the 1960s, positions on firearms rights did not necessarily map onto partisan affiliation. What explains this drastic shift? Patrick J. Charles charts the rise of gun rights activism from the early twentieth century through the 1980 presidential election, pinpointing the role of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Gun rights advocates including the National Rifle Association had lobbied legislators for decades, but they had cast firearms control as a local issue. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 spurred congressional proposals to regulate firearms, gun rights advocates found common cause with states’ rights proponents opposed to civil rights legislation. Following the enactment of the Gun Control Act, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle began to stake out firm positions. Politicians including Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan recognized the potential of gun control as a wedge issue, and gun rights became increasingly tied to the Republican Party. Drawing on a vast range of archival evidence, Charles offers new insight into the evolution of the gun rights movement and how politicians responded to anti–gun control hardliners. He examines in detail how the National Rifle Association reinvented itself as well as how other advocacy groups challenged the NRA’s political monopoly. Offering a deep dive into the politicization of gun rights, Vote Gun reveals the origins of the acrimonious divisions that persist to this day.

The aim of Irreconcilable Grievances is to discuss the pertinent events from July 1775 to July 1776 that influenced a large majority of the revolutionaries to call for independence. Much like any political stance today, people held their opinion based on