Nathan Kozuskanich follows in the footsteps of his mentor, Saul Cornell, by relying on credentials to defend factually inaccurate claims about the history of the right to arms and the scholars who specialize in the area. In part I of this article, we address the key factual issues in Kozuskanich's article, History or Ideology? A Response to David B. Kopel and Clayton E. Cramer. In part II, we address Kozuskanich's assertion that only people such as himself are qualified to write legal history.