Strategic uses of constitutional originalism by conservatives in US gun politics and beyond

Figures & data

Table 1. Interest groups’ organisational histories.

Interest group	Acronymn	Founded	Primary location	Policy priorities	Organisation type	Typology
1. American Center for Law and Justice	ACLJ	1990	Washington, D.C.	Religious freedom	PILF (public interest law firm)	iv. New Christian Right (NCR)
2. American Civil Rights Union	ACRU	1998	Naples, Florida	Religious, social/economic freedom	Legal organisation	iii. Social-Institutional Conservative
3. American Legislative Exchange Council	ALEC	1973	Arlington, Virginia	Small government, free enterprise, social issues	Voluntary organisation	iii. Social-Institutional Conservative
4. Cato Institute	Cato	1974/7	Washington, D.C.	Individual/economic freedom	Think tank	i. Libertarian
5. Center for Individual Freedom	CFIF	1998	Virginia	Small government, economic freedom	Nonprofit org	ii. Free market
6. Foundation for Moral Law	FML	2003	Montgomery, Alabama	First Amendment, religious freedom	Legal advocacy group	iv. New Christian Right
7. Goldwater Institute	GI	1988	Phoenix, Arizona	Small government, free market	Think tank/litigating organisation	ii. Free market
8. Heartland Institute	HI	1984	Arlington Heights, Illinois	Small government, free market	Think tank	ii. Free market
9. Institute for Justice	IJ	1991	Arlington, Virginia	Economic Liberty, Educational choice, Private property, First Amdnt	PILF (public interest law firm)	i. Libertarian
10. Libertarian National Committee	LNC	1971	Washington, D.C.	Individual/economic freedom	Committee of political party	i. Libertarian
11. Liberty Legal Institute	LLI	1997	Planto, Texas	Religious freedom	Nonprofit legal organisation	iv. New Christian Right
12. Mountain States Legal Foundation	MSLF	1977	Lakewood, Colorado	Free market	Public interest law firm	ii. Free market
13.Southeastern Legal Foundation	SLF	1976	Marietta, Georgia	limitedgovernment, individual economic freedom, free enterprise	PILF (public interest law firm)	iii. Social-Institutional Conservative

Sources: Compiled author. (See McGann 2008; group websites (Online Appendix A)).

Table 2. Groups categorised by typology.

Typology	Constituent groups	Value descriptors	Policy/Legal Areas of Priority	Total Number of Groups
i. Libertarian	Cato Institute Institute for Justice Libertarian National Committee	Emphasis on human freedom. Often espousing small state and market liberalization.	Individual freedom, limiting government regulation	3
ii. Free Market	(4) CFIF (5) Goldwater Institute (6) Heartland Institute (7) Mountain States Legal Foundation	Overlaps with but distinct from libertarianism; pragmatically interested in free markets.	Property rights and economic liberty, limiting government regulation	4
iii. Social-Institutional Conservative	(8) ACRU (9) ALEC (10) Southeastern Legal Foundation	Generic. Socially conservative with elements of small-state. Often neoconservative.	Small government, social conservatism, legal conservatism.	3
iv. New Christian Right (NCR)	(11) ACLJ (12) Foundation for Moral Law (13) Liberty Legal Institute	Social conservatives, often authoritarian in contrast to libertarians; prioritizing Christian values and religious freedom.	First Amendment, religious freedom, (marriage, abortion, religion in schools)	3

Source: Compiled by author using organisations’ websites [accessed July 2021] and Heller amicus briefs (2008).

Table 3. Dimensions of originalist discourse.

Dimension	Key words
i. Explicit historicism	“history”, “historical”
ii. Contextual origins	“England”, “origins”
iii. Constitutional interpretation	“miller”, collective rights theory”, “interpretation”
iv. Teleology	“purpose”, “intention”, “provisions”

Source: Author.

Table 4. Cigs and gun groups’ alignment with originalist discourse compared.

Dimension	Groups	Proportion of sample
i. Explicit historicism	ACRU, ALEC, Cato, FML, (GI), HI, IJ, MSLF	8/13
ii. Contextual origins	ACRU, (ALEC), Cato*, FML, HI, MSLF	6/13
iii. Constitutional interpretation	ACLJ, ACRU, ALEC, Cato, CFIF*, FML, HI, IJ, MSLF	8/13
iv. Teleology	ACLJ, ACRU, ALEC, Cato, FML, HI, IJ, MSLF	8/13

Source: Author.

Table 5. Cigs and gun groups’ alignment with originalist discourse compared.

Dimension	Details
ii. Contextual origins	Each node is higher among the 13 interest groups. There are equal uses of “original”. “English” and “England” are used more by the 13 by a substantial margin.
iii. Constitutional interpretation	“Collective” 87 counts to 17 (0.10% higher), “miller” 75 to 38 counts (0.05% higher). There are even more mentions of “constitution” and “constitutional” (0.03% and 0.06% higher).
iv. Teleology	Nodes are substantially higher among the interest groups. “Purpose” is a third higher for the 13 (40.9% higher; 93 counts to 66). “Intention” does not rank high enough to be included in the top 1001 words of the aggregated gun group briefs. “Provisions” is used almost twice more by the interest group (93 aggregated counts versus 66 counts). “Interpretation” is 143.47% higher among 13 than 11 (56 counts versus 23).

Source: Author.

Table 6. Use of originalist discourse according to ideational typology.

Use of originalist discourse	Number of groups	Groups
i. Libertarian	2	Cato, Institute for Justice
ii. Free Market	3	Heartland, MSLF, CFIF
iii. Conservative	1	ACRU
iv. New Christian Right	2	ACLJ, FML

Source: Author.

Table 7. Groups who do not use originalist discourse, according to ideational typology.

Absence/lesser use of originalist discourse	Number of groups	Groups
i. Libertarian	1	LNC
ii. Free Market	1	GI (*if excluding CFIF)
iii. Conservative	2	ALEC, SLF
iv. New Christian Right	1	LLI

Source: Author.

McGann, James G. 2008. Global Go to Think Tanks Index Report. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=think_tanks.

 Google Scholar

District of Columbia v. Heller § 554 U.S. 570. 2008. Accessed May 17, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/.

 Google Scholar