Date of Award

2026

Degree Type

Open Access Dissertation

Degree Name

Political Science, PhD

Program

School of Social Science, Politics, and Evaluation

Advisor/Supervisor/Committee Chair

Melissa Rogers

Dissertation or Thesis Committee Member

Carlos Algara

Dissertation or Thesis Committee Member

Tyler Reny

Terms of Use & License Information

Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont.

Rights Information

© 2026 Laura Muna-Landa

Keywords

Guns, Ideology, Reconstruction, Second Amendment, Supreme Court

Subject Categories

Law | Political Science

Abstract

This dissertation traces the evolution of the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, which shifted from a constitutional provision grounded in collective security and concerns about tyranny to a modern doctrine emphasizing an individual right to possess firearms. It contends that post-Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decisions do not simply “apply” founding-era intent to modern circumstances but instead reflect a significant doctrinal reconstruction that now shapes both gun policy and public perceptions of constitutional meaning. This research first reconstructs the founding-era context, then tests explanations of judicial behavior, and finally applies that framework to Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. Chapter 1 sets a baseline by placing the Amendment in its founding-era political context, including fears of centralized tyranny, federal overreach, and the view of state militias as a federalism safeguard. This chapter argues that the Amendment’s language most accurately reflects federalist design and collective security interests, using this baseline to assess the modern shift toward self-defense as the prevailing constitutional framework. Chapter 2 builds an explanatory framework and shows why no single theory of judicial behavior fits the Second Amendment cases. While the Court is constrained by doctrine, precedent, and institutional norms, it also operates dynamically, with justices responding to social and political conditions and to legitimacy pressures that influence compliance and enforcement. Accordingly, this chapter examines not only whether ideology is significant, but also how it operates through institutional mechanisms such as coalition formation, strategic alignment, and the justificatory methods the Court employs to defend outcomes in contested constitutional domains. Chapter 3 applies this framework to the Roberts Court’s modern Second Amendment trilogy: Heller, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), treating these as scope-defining decisions that collectively construct the contemporary doctrine. Heller establishes the doctrinal core by recognizing an individual right to possess firearms, particularly for self-defense in the home. McDonald extends this right nationwide through incorporation against the states. Bruen sets the governing decision rule for future cases by rejecting means–end balancing and directing courts to focus on text, history, and tradition. Together, these cases set the architecture for modern doctrine and guide how lower courts review gun regulations. This study combines historical analysis, doctrinal analysis, and empirical study of Supreme Court decision-making. It links coalition formation and justificatory style to ideological positioning and the location of the median justice, evaluating how majorities are constructed, how opinions justify results, and why particular methodological choices become durable. Across the trilogy, my research finds a consistent relationship between ideological position and vote direction, and it advances a median-justice mechanism: when the Court’s pivot is positioned to the right of center, rights-expanding outcomes are more likely and more stable. It further contends that the doctrinal durability is closely tied to method: majority opinions emphasize text, history, and tradition, while dissents focus on regulatory reasoning, institutional competence, and public safety concerns. The central conclusion of this dissertation is that modern Second Amendment doctrine is best understood as coalition-driven doctrinal construction, rather than an interpretation dictated by the historical record. The interpretive method matters because it sets the rules of the game for lower courts and lawmakers. Bruen’s history-and-tradition test is significant not only for its impact on case outcomes, but also because it narrows what lower courts may rely on, pushing them away from modern balancing and toward historical analogies. As a result, today’s Second Amendment litigation focuses on historical analogy: what counts as a proper analogue, which period matters most, and how courts handle new technology and social change. Finally, this dissertation identifies several implications for future developments. First, doctrinal stability and subsequent outcomes will continue to depend on the composition of the Court, especially the position and reasoning style of the median justice. Second, methodological choices will shape the practical scope of the right, as the history-and-tradition framework channels litigation into historical debates that are often indeterminate yet decisive. Third, legitimacy and the broader public environment remain influential, even within a framework that appears historical, because the Court’s doctrinal decisions affect public discourse, legislative responses, and lower-court implementation, which in turn shape the context for future Supreme Court cases.

ISBN

9798244862904

Download

Share

COinS