The Evolution of Gun Rights and Laws in the United States

International Journal of Development Research

Volume: 
15
Article ID: 
30058
8 pages
Research Article

The Evolution of Gun Rights and Laws in the United States

Seungkyu Han

Abstract: 

This article revises and expands a comprehensive historical and legal analysis of the Second Amendment, tracing the evolution from militia-centered obligations in the Anglo-American tradition to a modern, individual constitutional right refined by recent Supreme Court decisions. It organizes the literature and case law across five arcs: (1) English and colonial foundations; (2) nineteenth‑century constitutional developments and Reconstruction; (3) twentieth‑century statutory responses to crime, political violence, and urbanization; (4) the jurisprudential transformation from Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) to Bruen’s text‑and‑history framework (2022); and (5) post‑Bruen course‑corrections and clarifications in Rahimi (2024), Cargill (2024), Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025), and the lower‑court landscape on assault‑style weapon and magazine restrictions. Substantively, the revised discussion emphasizes how courts have now begun to converge on a two‑step inquiry embedded within Bruen: (a) whether the regulated item or conduct falls within the Amendment’s plain text (“Arms,” keeping, bearing) and (b) whether the government can demonstrate a historical analogue that reasonably addresses similar dangers without demanding an exact eighteenth‑century twin. Empirically, we incorporate the CDC’s 2023 fatal injury data and recent analyses from research institutions to contextualize policy tradeoffs while avoiding means‑end balancing in the constitutional test itself. Conceptually, we argue that post‑Bruen decisions—most notably Rahimi’s recognition of disarming those posing a credible threat and the statutory holdings in Cargill and VanDerStok—suggest a jurisprudence that is more administrable than initially feared, with space for targeted regulation of dangerous individuals and technologies even as core law‑abiding possession remains protected. The paper closes by mapping points of emerging consensus and genuine uncertainty for scholars, legislators, and practitioners. (≈250 words)

DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.37118/ijdr.30058.09.2025
Download PDF: