Twenty-seven words. That is the entire text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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. And for more than two centuries, Americans have been arguing about what those twenty-seven words mean — in courtrooms, in statehouses, in campaign ads, and in the streets.

The fight is about guns. But it is also about something larger: liberty and public safety, individual rights and democratic government, what the Constitution meant in 1791 and what it can mean in a country the founders could not have imagined. A country with more than 400 million firearms in civilian hands. A country where gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children and teenagers. A country still working out, case by case and law by law, where one of its foundational rights ends and the government's interest in safety begins.

The modern legal landscape begins with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense — overturning nearly two centuries of jurisprudence that had centered the right on the organized militia. Fourteen years later, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen raised the stakes further, instructing courts to evaluate the constitutionality of gun laws not by weighing their public safety benefits, but by asking whether they are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. And in 2026, Virginia became the latest front in that fight, enacting one of the most significant state-level assault weapons bans in the country — drawing immediate legal challenges from gun rights groups and setting up a confrontation that may reach the Supreme Court.

In this episode of America at 250: Due Diligence, three guests take on the Second Amendment from three very different vantage points. A constitutional scholar walks through the legal architecture from the founding era through Heller and Bruen, including the uncomfortable racial history embedded in originalist jurisprudence. A Virginia state delegate and combat veteran who spent seven years pushing an assault weapons ban explains what it took to get it done — and what his time under fire in Iraq and Afghanistan taught him about the weapons at the center of this debate. And a constitutional attorney who has argued Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court makes the case that the Virginia law, like every other assault weapons ban, is unconstitutional — and that the most popular rifle in America is firmly on the protected side of the line Congress drew in 1934.

Twenty-seven words. Two hundred and thirty years. And the argument persists.

Hosts Steve Herman

Steve Herman is a veteran journalist and former White House Bureau Chief for Voice of America. He brings decades of reporting experience to America at 250: Due Diligence, helping guide the series through the historical, political, and institutional questions that have shaped the United States.

•      Website: Steve Herman

•      X: @newsguyUSA

Bill Bernardoni

Bill Bernardoni is the founder of Bernardoni Media & Marketing and co-host of America at 250: Due Diligence. His work focuses on building, producing, and distributing podcasts and radio programs that bring serious conversations to broad audiences.

•      Website: Bernardoni Media & Marketing

•      Blog: The Bernardoni Brief

•      X: @BillBernardoni

Guests Featured in This Episode Professor Joseph Blocher

Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Distinguished Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and the Co-Founder and Faculty Director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law. His scholarship on gun rights and regulation has been cited by the Supreme Court and nearly every federal court of appeals. He is the co-author of The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018), one of the most widely cited works in the field, as well as The Second Amendment: Gun Rights and Regulation (Foundation Press, 2025). He has testified before House and Senate committees and written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major publications.

•      Duke Law faculty page: Joseph Blocher

•      Duke Center for Firearms Law: firearmslaw.duke.edu

Delegate Dan Helmer

Dan Helmer represents Virginia's 10th District in the House of Delegates. A graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and a Rhodes Scholar (Wolfson College, Oxford), he served as an Army Intelligence and Armor Officer with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to serve as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. He was the chief patron of the Virginia House Companion Bill for the Commonwealth's 2026 assault weapons ban — legislation he pursued for seven years — and is a gun owner who has received death threats as a result of his advocacy.

•      Virginia House of Delegates: Delegate Dan Helmer

Stephen P. Halbrook

Stephen P. Halbrook is a constitutional attorney, Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, and one of the foremost litigators in the field of Second Amendment law. He has personally argued and won three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

•      Website: stephenhalbrook.com

•      America's Rifle: The Case for the AR-15: stephenhalbrook.com/books/americas-rifle

A Question for Our Listeners

The Second Amendment has been interpreted in radically different ways by different courts, in different eras, with different political majorities shaping who got to decide. Now the Supreme Court has told judges to look to history — but as Professor Blocher points out, that history includes some deeply uncomfortable chapters. Delegate Helmer argues that the founders themselves drew lines around military weapons. Stephen Halbrook argues the line Congress drew in 1934 — at fully automatic firearms — has held for ninety years for a reason.

If the question of which weapons the Second Amendment protects is ultimately decided by historical analogy, whose history counts — and who gets to say?

Send us your thoughts at RadioFreeAmerica.media.

America at 250: Due Diligence is produced in partnership with the Jordan Center for Journalism, Advocacy, and Innovation at the University of Mississippi School of Journalism and New Media. Audio production by Bill Bernardoni of Bernardoni Media and Marketing. Portions of this program are recorded at WUMS Radio in Oxford, Mississippi. For more information, visit newslab.org.