By Joshua Hochman

 In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places were presumptively constitutional. Since Bruen, several states and the District of Columbia have defended their sensitive-place laws by analogizing to historical statutes regulating firearms in other places, like schools and government buildings. Many judges, scholars, and litigants appear to have assumed that only statutescan count as evidence of the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This Note is the first expansive account since Bruen to challenge this assumption. It argues that courts should consider sources of analogical precedent outside of statutory lawmaking when applying the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. Taking public transportation as a case study, the Note surveys rules and regulations promulgated by railroad corporations in the nineteenth century and argues that these sources reveal a historical tradition of regulating firearm carriage on public transportation. Bruen permits courts to engage in more nuanced analogical reasoning when dealing with unprecedented concerns or dramatic changes. One such change is the shift in state capacity that has placed sites that were privately or quasi-publicly operated before the twentieth century under public control in the twenty-first century. As in the case of schools, which the Court has already deemed sensitive, a substantial portion of the nation’s transportation infrastructure in the nineteenth century was not entirely publicly owned and operated. For this reason, courts should consider evidence of historical firearm regulations enacted not just by legislatures but by quasi-public or private corporations. This case study instructs that courts and litigants can best honor Bruen’s history-based test by considering all of the nation’s history of firearm regulation.

Yale Law Review,  133:1676 2024

By Sofia Molina, Andrei Serbin Pont

The enduring proliferation of illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) remains a critical factor in the security and stability challenges facing Latin America. These armaments fuel organized crime, exacerbate violence, and empower non-state armed actors, thereby undermining governance and public safety. The foundational analysis presented by Andrei Serbin Pont and Alex Miller in the "Small Arms and Light Weapons Black Markets in Latin America" story map established a comprehensive framework for understanding these dynamics (Serbin Pont & Miller, 2022). This report builds upon that essential work, leveraging a new database of open-source seizure incidents to provide a current and granular update on the state of the illicit arms market.

The data analyzed, derived from police operations and journalistic reports compiled in the SALW dashboard from Brazil, Argentina, Panama, and Guatemala, reveals a market that is not only robust but also increasingly sophisticated and adaptive. A rigorous examination of the new dataset uncovers two significant phenomena that represent an evolution in the illicit arms trade. First, there is a proliferation of fake Colt markings on assault rifles. Second, the presence of other specific markings such as the "Punisher" skull, on seized firearms introduces another layer of analysis, indicating that weapons are not merely tools of violence but are also powerful symbols of criminal identity and ideology.

Miami: Florida International University, 2025. 9p.

by C. Nabokoff (Author), Graeme Newman (Introduction)

The Ordeal of a Diplomat is a vivid and penetrating memoir by Constantin Nabokoff, a senior Russian diplomat who served in India and London during the final years of the Russian Empire and the First World War. Writing with candor and intellectual clarity, Nabokoff recounts his experiences at the heart of imperial diplomacy as long-established political structures gave way to revolution, war, and the collapse of old alliances. His narrative blends personal observation with acute political insight, illuminating the misunderstandings, rivalries, and illusions that shaped international relations on the eve of the modern world. At once a historical document and a timeless meditation on power, loyalty, and misjudgment, the book offers a rare insider’s view of diplomacy conducted amid global crisis and enduring relevance for readers interested in international affairs today.

By Lev Topor

Arguments made by white supremacists to explain, promote, and gain support for their ideology fall into five categories: religious arguments, biological arguments, cultural arguments, arguments based on “protectionism,” and arguments relating to freedom of speech. Furthermore, while nationalism can lead to differences and conflicts between nations, global support for white supremacy can act as a common glue, uniting even historical adversaries, such as Americans and Russians. To explain and exemplify these phenomena, the pseudo-philosophical and pseudoscientific arguments in support of white supremacy are examined in the light of historical, social, and political trends, which all develop the concept of global white supremacy. Thus, while religious arguments in support of white supremacy date back thousands of years, “protectionist” arguments have become more prominent in the wake of terror events in the twenty-first century. They have also entered the mainstream as populists argue that “self-defense” is the only rational response to such threats. Ironically, it is the main idea behind each one of these arguments that ultimately serves to nullify it.

ISGAP’s Occasional Paper Series ISCAP, 2022. 33p.

Oxford ◆ Cambridge ◆ New York.◆ Jerusalem ◆ Toronto.◆ Rome;

The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy

ISCAP, 2022. 33p.

By Newton D. Baker, Edited by Ciolin Heston

Newton Diehl Baker’s Why We Went to War, published in 1921, is one of the most important contemporary American explanations of the nation’s entry into the First World War. Baker, who served as Secretary of War from 1916 to 1921 under President Woodrow Wilson, occupied a unique position at the very center of America’s wartime transformation. Once known as a progressive mayor of Cleveland and a disciple of Wilsonian reform, Baker became, almost overnight, the chief administrator responsible for raising, training, and mobilizing an army that grew from a modest peacetime force into one of the most formidable fighting powers of the modern age. His book represents both a justification and a reflection—part political defense, part historical testimony—on why the United States took the fateful step of joining a conflict from which it had long sought to remain apart.

For modern readers, Why We Went to War should be approached both as a primary document and as an act of persuasion. Baker was not an impartial historian; he was a participant and advocate, a defender of Wilsonian ideals at a moment when those ideals were under attack. His words reveal not only the official reasoning of the Wilson administration but also the mindset of a generation of progressives who believed that the United States, through sacrifice and leadership, could help reorder the world toward democracy and peace.

In the end, Baker’s book is as much about America’s identity as about the Great War. It reflects a moment when the nation stood at the crossroads between its traditional reluctance to become entangled in European affairs and its emerging role as a world power. To understand why the United States entered World War I is to understand not only the international provocations of the time but also the ideals, anxieties, and ambitions of a nation coming of age on the world stage.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p. 165.