John W. Enos, a constitutional scholar and author of The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, has consistently sounded the alarm about the growing threat of judicial activism to Second Amendment protections. In his extensive legal and historical analyses, Enos illustrates how modern court rulings increasingly depart from the Founders’ original intent. He contends that a dangerous precedent is being set—where judges rewrite constitutional principles under the guise of interpretation, thereby weakening citizens’ right to keep and bear arms. According to Enos, this trend is not only unconstitutional but a clear encroachment on individual liberty.
Rise of Judicial Activism and Its Constitutional Consequences
Enos argues that judicial activism—a practice in which judges infuse their own policy preferences into constitutional interpretation—is steadily eroding the foundational principles upon which the Second Amendment was built. This approach has enabled courts to dilute the clarity and force of the Amendment by invoking modern public safety concerns rather than adhering to historical and textual understanding.
For Enos, the issue is not just about gun rights but about constitutional integrity. He believes that when courts begin to legislate from the bench, they blur the lines between the judicial and legislative branches. This undermines the separation of powers and diminishes the rule of law. In Second Amendment cases, this activism frequently manifests through the application of “interest-balancing tests,” where judges weigh public safety against individual rights—a framework that Enos asserts the Framers would have categorically rejected.
How the Second Amendment Was Meant to Function
Enos grounds his position in the historical context of the Second Amendment, emphasizing its origin as a safeguard against tyranny. He notes that the right to keep and bear arms was not granted by the government but recognized as a pre-existing, natural right. This is evident in the writings of early American thinkers like George Mason and Patrick Henry, who believed that an armed populace was the ultimate check on government overreach.
In Enos’s view, modern interpretations that relegate the right to mere hunting or recreational use completely miss the Amendment’s purpose. He references early state constitutions and debates from the founding era that clearly articulate the role of arms in preserving liberty and enabling a free citizenry to resist oppression. Thus, when courts reinterpret the Second Amendment through the lens of modern policy, they disconnect it from its core function.
Firearm Regulation Perspective By John Enos
Within this framework, the firearm regulation perspective by John Enos becomes increasingly significant. Enos does not reject all forms of regulation; rather, he distinguishes between constitutionally valid limits and those born of activist jurisprudence. He supports regulations that align with the historical understanding of the right—such as restrictions on felons or the mentally ill—but he is deeply critical of laws that place arbitrary or burdensome obstacles in the path of law-abiding citizens.
For instance, Enos critiques licensing regimes that require extensive fees, multiple background checks, and long wait times. According to him, these measures do not serve public safety so much as they create a bureaucratic barrier that discourages gun ownership. Courts that uphold such laws, Enos claims, often rely on speculative arguments about future harms while ignoring the constitutional guarantee of the right itself.
He further explores how some judges justify these restrictions by claiming the Second Amendment is not “absolute,” a rhetorical strategy that Enos finds particularly troubling. While no right is entirely without limits, he argues that this logic has been used selectively—rarely applied to the First or Fourth Amendments with the same vigor as it is to the Second.
Key Judicial Decisions and Their Impacts
Enos devotes significant attention to recent federal and Supreme Court decisions that, in his view, reflect the creeping influence of judicial activism. He critiques the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision—not for its outcome, which affirmed an individual right—but for the fragile majority and the ambiguity that left lower courts with too much interpretive leeway.
Following Heller, many lower courts continued to uphold restrictive gun laws by applying balancing tests that Enos believes violate the originalist framework. He is particularly concerned with decisions from the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts, which, in his analysis, have repeatedly minimized the Second Amendment’s scope through creative interpretation.
He contrasts these decisions with the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling, which Enos views as a corrective measure. The Supreme Court in Bruen emphasized that modern gun laws must be evaluated based on historical tradition rather than judicial policy analysis. While Enos praised the ruling, he warns that its effectiveness will depend on how faithfully lower courts implement this standard.
Public Policy Versus Constitutional Principles
One of the most pressing concerns Enos raises is the substitution of public policy goals for constitutional reasoning. He argues that while gun violence is a serious issue, the Constitution was not designed to be overridden by temporary societal concerns. Instead, it exists to protect enduring principles, even in times of crisis.
Enos’s Call to Action Constitutional Vigilance
Ultimately, John Enos’s warning is not merely academic. He calls on lawmakers, judges, and citizens alike to remain vigilant in defending constitutional freedoms against the creeping tide of judicial overreach. In his writings and public speeches, he urges a return to originalist principles—not just in Second Amendment interpretation but across all constitutional domains.
Conclusion
John Enos’s analysis is a sobering reminder of how judicial philosophy can shape, distort, or defend constitutional rights. His critique of judicial activism serves as both a warning and a call to reaffirm the original intent behind the Second Amendment. Through rigorous historical research, legal scrutiny, and principled reasoning, Enos underscores the urgent need to preserve the Constitution’s integrity in the face of shifting judicial trends. His perspective on firearm regulation stands as a crucial contribution to the ongoing national dialogue on gun rights, the judiciary, and the future of American liberty.
