Gunfight at the Crossroads

No constitutional debate has shifted more dramatically over the last 25 years than the debate over the Second Amendment.  In 1988, when the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Edwin Meese produced its version of Crossroads, the Second Amendment wasn’t even mentioned.  Now, in the wake of two 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases, the debate over the Second Amendment has become a central battleground over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Read the Crossroads chapter on the Second Amendment.

UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, who literally “wrote the book” on Heller and McDonald,  has called the Heller opinion “Justice Scalia’s Living Constitution,” and it is certainly true that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has “lived” more in the last four years than in the previous 216 years combined.  Still, in Heller and McDonald, the Court raised far more questions than it answered.  While declaring that an individual right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right, the Court also stated unequivocally, twice, that many forms of gun regulation remain viable. The Court has further left open the precise contours of the right itself, as well as the test it will apply for judging restrictions on that right.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the Second Amendment revolution is its  potential for scrambling ideological divisions and changing the conversation about the Court.  Because the Court is expansively interpreting an individual right, some conservatives, such as Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, have strongly condemned Heller as judicial activism from the right.  On the other hand, CAC supported the gun rights advocates in McDonald to make a broader point about the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitution’s protection of individual rights. 

Given the number of cases now working their way through lower courts concerning the right to keep and bear arms, awaiting the Supreme Court’s clearer guidance, the Second Amendment today is at a crossroads.

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security

In DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through...