The right to bear arms refers to the concept that individuals, and/or governments, have a right to weapons. This right is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense. This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ...

Definitions of "to bear arms"

In the United States, the meaning of "bear arms" is a matter of recent dispute and continuing political debate.^[1][2] One argument is whether the expression involves the rights of the individual to 'bear arms' meaning to 'have arms', or whether it relates to a military service meaning of 'bear arms' as with the functioning and maintenance of a militia.^[1] Individual rights represent the moral rights of individuals in society prior to government. ... Lebanese Kataeb militia The term Militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary [1] citizens to provide defense, emergency, law enforcement, or paramilitary service, and those engaged in such activity, without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. ...

Military service definition

Many historians have published peer reviewed research which shows that prior to and through the Eighteenth century, usage of the expression "bear arms" referred to the profession of military service, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians.^[3][4][5][6] In times of armed conflict a civilian is any person who is not a combatant. ...

"In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. ... As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia."^[3]

As an example, the expression 'bear arms' is contained in the United States Declaration of Independence in the sense of 'military service' on a warship, as part of an indictment of the King of Great Britain for conscripting Colonial sailors to serve on British warships. The United States Declaration of Independence was an act of the Second Continental Congress, adopted on July 4, 1776, which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were Free and Independent States and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to...

"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands."

To the contrary, with commentary written by Judge Sam Cummings in the Emerson case, the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals concluded in 2001 that:^[7] United States v. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts: Eastern District of Louisiana Middle District of Louisiana Western District of Louisiana Northern District of Mississippi Southern District of Mississippi Eastern District of Texas Northern... The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the mid-level appellate courts of the United States federal court system. ...

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."^[8]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about the year 1330. And, defines the term to bear arms against as: "to be engaged in hostilities with." dating the usage back to about the year 1000 with the epic poem Beowulf.^[9] The Oxford English Dictionary print set The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a dictionary published by the Oxford University Press (OUP), and is the most successful dictionary of the English language, (not to be confused with the one-volume Oxford Dictionary of English, formerly New Oxford Dictionary of English, of... This article is about the epic poem. ...

Garry Wills, author and history professor at Northwestern University, has written of the origin of the term bear arms: Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934 in Atlanta, Georgia) is an author and historian, and a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. ... Northwestern University (NU) is a selective private, nonsectarian, coeducational research university with campuses located in Evanston, Illinois and downtown Chicago, Illinois. ...

"By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... "One does not bear arms against a rabbit...".^[3]

In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, in England and the British Colonies, the militia system was based on the principle of the Twelfth Century Assize of Arms, where there was general obligation of adult males to possess arms and cooperate in the work of defense.^[10] Please wikify (format) this article as suggested in the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style. ...

Insurrectionary theory

The Second Amendment of the United States has been viewed by some Americans, as including those who are part of the modern militia movement as providing a means for resisting governmental tyranny, also known as the "insurrectionary theory of the Second Amendment". This view has been fiercely disputed among both historians and legal scholars. The modern militia movement has sought to advance its case through selective quoting on websites and publications the words of the founding fathers, though the accuracy of these quotations has been debated. What is notable is that the quotations generally align not with the Federalist Framers, but rather with the Anti-Federalist objectors to the Constitution. People sympathetic with the modern militia movement object to this analysis.^[11][12] A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. ...

The right to have arms

The English Bill of Rights 1689 set out the right of Protestants to have arms suitable for their own defense as allowed by law.^[13] This was because of the fear the Protestants had in England of being disarmed that led to the Glorious Revolution and subsequently their guaranteed right to self-defense. English Bill of Rights (1689). ... The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England (VII of Scotland) in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians and the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange), who as a result ascended the English throne as William...

William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", espousing the individual right to protect oneself.^[13] William Blackstone as illustrated in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. ...

In an effort to consolidate power in 17th century England, the Catholic King James II of England sought to disarm Protestants by discharging them from the militia, both in Ireland and in England, replacing them with Catholics. This policy of consolidation also included an aspect of shifting control of the weapons from citizens' militia to the professional army, thereby reducing the number of weapons in the hands of his Protestant subjects and political opponents. This disarmament policy included enforcement of the Game Act, and an archaic measure from 1328 that forbade men to ride armed 'in affray of the peace'.^[14] James II and VII (14 October 1633 – 16 September 1701)[2] was King of England, King of Scots,[1] and King of Ireland from 6 February 1685 to 11 December 1688. ...

In modern usage, "arms" is often considered synonymous with "firearms". Historically, however, "arms" has referred to a variety of weapons and armor.^[15] In the United States, the term has been used to refer to edged weapons such as the bayonet and sabre.^[16] For other uses, see bayonet (disambiguation). ... French naval officers sabre of the 19th Century From left to right: two bayonets, a short curved infantry or artillery briquet, a straight infantry officers sabre, and a carbine. ...

Historical sources or protections of the right

The right to bear arms varies by country (see State (law)) and at times varies by jurisdiction within a sovereign state. For the purposes of Public International Law and Private International Law, a state is a defined group of people, living within defined territorial boundaries and subject, more or less, to an autonomous legal system exercising jurisdiction through properly constituted courts. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... This article discusses states as sovereign political entities. ...

Jurisdictions with English judicial origin

Main article: English law

Frequently cited sources: English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ...

• Common Law
• English Bill of Rights, 1689^[17]

The responsibility to keep and bear arms in jurisdictions operating under English Common Law follows a precedent that predates the invention of firearms, originating contemporaneously with the jury trial and the emergence of the common law system, during the reign of Henry II, who promulgated the Assize of Arms in 1181, which required knights and freemen to keep arms and to bear them in service of the king.^[18] A Common Law right to have arms for self defense was codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (also known as the English Declaration of Rights), at least for Protestants. England, Ireland, the Colonies in North America (which became the United States), Canada, and Australia all received this Common Law inheritance and long maintained a responsibility to keep and bear arms tradition originating from this common basis. Subsequent to this, over the last 80 years, in all these countries except the United States, Parliamentary supremacy has permitted statutory law to be developed that extinguishes the historical common law right to have arms for self defense. Similarly, in the United States, the courts have widely allowed local jurisdictions in some states (e.g., New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey) to license and regulate historical common law rights to have arms for self defense. This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... The Bill of Rights 1689 is an English Act of Parliament with the long title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown and known colloquially in the UK as the Bill of Rights. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... A firearm is a kinetic energy weapon that fires either a single or multiple projectiles propelled at high velocity by the gases produced by action of the rapid confined burning of a propellant. ... It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Jury. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Henry II of England (5 March 1133 – 6 July 1189) ruled as King of England (1154–1189), Count of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Count of Nantes, Lord of Ireland and, at various times, controlled parts of Wales, Scotland and western France. ... Please wikify (format) this article as suggested in the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style. ... Events Jayavarman VII assumes control of the Khmer kingdom. ... For other uses, see Knight (disambiguation) or Knights (disambiguation). ... This is a list of British monarchs, that is, the monarchs on the thrones of some of the various kingdoms that have existed on, or incorporated, the island of Great Britain, namely: England (united with Wales from 1536) up to 1707; Scotland up to 1707; The Kingdom of Great Britain... Protestantism is a general grouping of denominations within Christianity. ... Parliamentary sovereignty or Parliamentary supremacy is the concept in British constitutional law that a parliament has sovereignty. ... Statutory law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature or other governing authority such as the executive branch of government in response to a perceived need to clarify the functioning of government, improve civil order, answer a public need, to codify existing...

United Kingdom

Further information: English law, Scots Law, and Northern Ireland law

Although a right to have and use arms once existed in English law and Scots law, this is no longer the case and has not been so for many decades. Some argue that a general right to keep or bear arms has not existed for centuries. In any case, the modern legal situation is that the possession of firearms is effectively a privilege granted only to persons who can demonstrate both a need and that they are sufficiently responsible. English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ... Scots law is a unique legal system with an ancient basis in Roman law. ... Northern Ireland law concerns the legal system in Northern Ireland. ... English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ... Scots law is a unique legal system with an ancient basis in Roman law. ...

The Bill of Rights of 1689 included the provision that "the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law."^[19] The words "as allowed by Law" indicate this was always a qualified rather than an absolute right. However this provision, along with many other pieces of ancient law, has been overruled by the doctrine of implied repeal, the Bill of Rights had no special legal protection as a result of parliamentary sovereignty. English Bill of Rights (1689). ... The Doctrine of Implied repeal is a concept in English constitutional theory which states that an earlier Act of Parliament cannot be used to amend or repeal a later Act. ... Parliamentary sovereignty, parliamentary supremacy, or legislative supremacy is a concept in constitutional law that applies to some parliamentary democracies. ...

The Claim of Right enacted almost identical provisions to the Bill of Rights in Scotland prior to the creation of the United Kingdom and contained the provision that "the disarming of Protestants...[is] contrary to law". The Claim of Right is an Acts of Parliament passed by the old Scottish Parliament in April 1689. ...

The English Bill of Rights should not be equated to the United States Bill of Rights. In the United Kingdom, Parliament is the ultimate authority and legislation is not constrained by a central codified constitution like that of the United States. More recent statements of rights, such as the UK Human Rights Act 1998 have contained no mention of a right to bear arms, and whilst the law of the European Union makes certain provisions relating to gun ownership, they are focused on the harmonisation of national laws for trade purposes.^[20] The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. ... The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative institution in the United Kingdom and British overseas territories (it alone has parliamentary sovereignty). ... In law, codification is the process of collecting and restating the law of a jurisdiction in certain areas, usually by subject. ... The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on November 9, 1998, and mostly came into force on October 2, 2000. ...

Pistols, revolvers, rifles and ammunition were first controlled by the Firearms Act of 1920, which made it illegal to possess these weapons without first obtaining a certificate from the police. Similar provisions were introduced for shotguns in 1967.^[21] A Browning 9 millimeter Hi-Power Ordnance pistol of the French Navy, 19th century, using a Percussion cap mechanism Derringers were small and easily hidden. ... For other uses, see Revolver (disambiguation). ... For other uses, see Rifle (disambiguation). ... Ammunition, often referred to as ammo, is a generic term meaning (the assembly of) a projectile and its propellant. ...

The Firearms Act 1968 placed an absolute ban on certain types of weapons, including automatic or self-loading guns.^[22] Since then only the armed forces and police have had access to these types of arms. The Firearms Act 1982 extended the provision of the 1968 Act, including control of imitation firearms. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 introduced further very significant restrictions.^[23] This has led, in effect, to a total ban on private possession of pistols even for competitive sporting purposes. Small-bore rifles remain permitted for competition however. The Firearms (Amendment) (No. ...

Following the Dunblane Massacre, the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 criminalised the possession of virtually all handguns in the United Kingdom. The Dunblane massacre was a multiple murder-suicide which occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. ... The Firearms (Amendment) (No. ... A handgun is a firearm small enough to be carried and used in one hand. ...

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has brought certain types of air weapons into the categories of control created by the firearms acts.^[24] The Anti-Social Behaviour Act is a law in the United Kingdom. ...

UK legislation often gives considerable powers to ministers to issue regulations that control the way the various acts are applied. In relation to firearms this power generally falls to the Home Secretary. The Home Office therefore has some control of the conditions under which firearms can be licensed. On a few occasions over the years permits have been granted to private individuals to keep firearms for personal protection, for example during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland, however these are very limited and exceptional cases. United Kingdom legislation comes from a number of different sources. ... The Secretary of State for the Home Department, commonly known as the Home Secretary, is the minister in charge of the United Kingdom Home Office and is responsible for internal affairs in England and Wales, and for immigration and citizenship for the whole United Kingdom (including Scotland and Northern Ireland). ... The modern concept of Small Office and Home Office or SoHo , or Small or Home Office deals with the category of business which can be from 1 to 10 workers. ... For other uses, see Troubles (disambiguation) and Trouble. ... Northern Ireland (Irish: , Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a constituent country of the United Kingdom lying in the northeast of the island of Ireland, covering 5,459 square miles (14,139 km², about a sixth of the islands total area). ...

United States of America

The right to keep and bear arms did not originate fully-formed in the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the codification of the six centuries old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution, the common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms. The United States Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. ... The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State and prohibits infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear... Wikisource has original text related to this article: The United States Constitution The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. ...

This right is often presented in the United States as synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, although this belief is controversial among some factions and is not subscribed to by all. The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State and prohibits infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear...

• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.

• Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution Provides for unenumerated rights, including implicitly a right to keep and bear arms and a right to have arms for defense, hunting, sport etc.

Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."^[25] The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares a well-regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State and prohibits infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear... The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment IX (the Ninth Amendment) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. ...

Akhil Reed Amar similarly notes in the Yale Law Journal, April 1992, Page 1193, the basis of Common Law for the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, "following John Randolph Tucker's famous oral argument in the 1887 Chicago anarchist case, Spies v. Illinois":

Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet insofar as they secure and recognize fundamental rights -- common law rights -- of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States...^[26]

Uviller and Merkel also hold that the right to bear arms was not reserved exclusively for the state, but rather was an individual and personal right for arms only to the extent needed to maintain a well regulated militia. Yet they and other scholars hold that a militia recognizable to the framers of the Constitution has ceased to exist in the United States resulting from deliberate Congressional legislation and also societal neglect; nonetheless, "Technically, all males aged seventeen to forty-five are members of the unorganized militia, but that status has no practical legal significance."^[6][7]

"From the text as well as a fair understanding of the contemporary ethic regarding arms and liberty, it seems to us overwhelmingly evident that the principal purpose of the Amendment was to secure a personal, individual entitlement to the possession and use of arms. We cannot, however, (as the individual rights contingent generally does) disregard entirely the first part of the text proclaiming a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state."^[27]

"...we understand the Second Amendment as though it read: "Inasmuch as and so long as a well regulated Militia shall be necessary to the security of a free state and so long as privately held arms shall be essential to the maintenance thereof, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "..to us, the language of the Amendment cannot support a right to personal weaponry independent of the social value of a regulated organization of armed citizens.."^[28]

Three models

Modern legal theorists generally identify three models of interpreting the United States right to bear arms. These three models are founded on differing readings of the Second Amendment, "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."

The first two models focus on the preamble, or "purpose" clause, of the Amendment — the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The first model, the collective model, holds that the right to bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia. The second model, the modified collective model, is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed.^[29]

The third model, the Individual Rights Model, holds that a right of individuals is to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech.^[29] Additionally, this Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.^[30] Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, formulated that argument in an interview. "Let’s assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right," said Strossen, "it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance."^[31] A portait of Nadine Strossen Professor Nadine Strossen is president of the American Civil Liberties Union. ... The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, is a non_governmental organization devoted to defending civil rights and civil liberties in the United States. ... Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review used by courts in the United States. ...

United States federal courts have consistently interpreted the federal right to bear arms in the United States Constitution as the modified collective right, not an individual right^[32] with two recent exceptions in the circuit courts: The 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson and the 2007 D.C. Circuit ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, both of which rely on principles of an individual right to firearms.^[33] A Supreme Court review of the Heller case will likely occur by summer 2008, with oral arguments taking place in March 2008. Presently, nine of the federal circuit courts of appeal support a modified collective rights view, two of the federal circuits support an individual rights view, and the Supreme Court and one federal circuit court have not addressed the question.^[34] United States v. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ... Holding The statutes as applied are unconstitutional. ...

At the state level, each of the fifty state constitutions, state laws, and state courts address the state-based right to bear arms distinctly within their respective jurisdictions.^[35] The degree and the nature of the protection, prohibition, and regulation at the state level varies from state to state. The District of Columbia, not being a state, falls within the federal jurisdiction.

In the Nineteenth century, in the United States, considerable attention in public discourse and the courts was directed to the issue of the risks of arming of slaves (prior to the Civil War), and later to the right of the Negro people to belong to militia and the arming of the Negro people. Most famously this is seen in the court arguments of the court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, whether the slave Dred Scott could be a citizen, with rights, including the right to bear arms. This debate about the rights of slaves and former slaves often included the usage of the term 'bear arms' with the meaning of individual Negroes having or not having the right to possess firearms. Holding States do not have the right to claim an individuals property that was fairly theirs in another state. ... This article is about the slave. ...

For the first time, in October 2001, contrary to established legal precedent,^[36] a court ruled that the United States Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms for purposes unrelated to military service.^[1] In the case United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated: United States v. ... The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the mid-level appellate courts of the United States federal court system. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts: Eastern District of Louisiana Middle District of Louisiana Western District of Louisiana Northern District of Mississippi Southern District of Mississippi Eastern District of Texas Northern...

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."^[37][38]

The Emerson decision was consistent with a view of Constitutional interpretation known by its principal advocates^[39] as the "Standard Model" view, and alternatively referred to as the "Individualist view".^[2][40] There is some dispute whether the "individualist view" predates the collective "militia view" in American jurisprudence. At least one legal expert asserts the "militia view" as first appearing only in the early to mid 1990s.^[41][42] A contrasting expert opinion states the militia view as long predating the individualist view,^[43] with the individualist view dating back to only 1960.^[2][44][45]

In the late Twentieth Century, gun advocates argued that the term 'bear arms' means and has meant keeping and bearing private arms for self defense or hunting purposes.^[46]

"Don Kates writes in the Michigan Law Review that the (Second) amendment clearly refers to personal weapons, since "bear" means "carry," and a person cannot carry certain military weapons, like artillery. This gets things exactly backwards. "Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') -- one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings."^[47] Don Kates is a retired professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist associated with the Pacific Research Institute (San Francisco). ...

Gun Control

Before 1963, gun control control legislation was not an issue drawing much attention in the United States, with the exception of some attention towards gun control in the Nineteenth Century targeted at Blacks in the South, and foreign born immigrants in the North.^[48]

Early commentary about the right to bear arms in state courts of the United States

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is a Federal provision. Each of the fifty states also has its own state constitution addressing their specific state. Forty-four states have chosen to embody explicitly a right to bear arms into their state's constitution,^[49] and six states have chosen explicitly not to do so.

Of the forty-four states that have chosen to embody explicitly a right to bear arms into their state's constitution, approximately thirty-one have explicitly chosen to include the right to arms for "individual right", "defense of self", "defense of home" or similarly worded reasons. Approximately thirteen states, as with the Federal Constitution, did not choose to include explicitly "individual", "self" or "home" wording associated with a right to bear arms for their specific state.

Of the forty-four states, approximately twenty-eight have explicitly chosen to include the right to bear arms for "security of a free state", "defense of state", "common defense" or similarly worded reasons, as with the Federal Constitution. Approximately sixteen states did not choose to include explicitly "free state", "defense of state" or "common defense" wording for their specific state. Whether the inclusion of these kinds of wording in state constitutions has relevance to the issue of whether implicit "individual" rights exist, or whether such rights (if any) are implicitly protected by the states' constitutions or by the Federal Constitution's Second Amendment, remains a matter of dispute.

Regarding the state constitutional rights to bear arms, the state courts have addressed the meaning of their specific state rights under their specific state's constitution. Two different models have emerged in state jurisprudence. For the jurisprudence of courts, see Case law. ...

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),^[50] which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. As stated by the Kentucky High Court, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."^[50] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.^[51] As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" would have had to have been the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.^[52] Official language(s) English[1] Capital Frankfort Largest city Louisville Area  Ranked 37th  - Total 40,444 sq mi (104,749 km²)  - Width 140 miles (225 km)  - Length 379 miles (610 km)  - % water 1. ...

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), which stated "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."^[53] did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state.

The result was that the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was eventually over-turned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850), banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980’s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified. In contrast to this, all states currently regulate the possession and use of firearms to some extent."^[54][55]

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, "that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense",^[56] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood "indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment." The Arkansas high court further declared "That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms." Joel Prentiss Bishop’s influential Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes (1873) took Buzzard's militia-based interpretation, a view that Bishop characterized as the “Arkansas doctrine", as the orthodox view of the right to bear arms in American law.^[56] A Browning 9 millimeter Hi-Power Ordnance pistol of the French Navy, 19th century, using a Percussion cap mechanism Derringers were small and easily hidden. ... Dirk is a Scots word for a long dagger; sometimes a cut-down sword blade mounted on a dagger hilt, rather than a knife blade. ...

Modern gun rights advocates have disputed this history, claiming that the individual right was the orthodox view of the right to bear arms under state law in the 19th century, citing the previously-mentioned Bliss v. Commonwealth, and even State v. Buzzard, which recognized the right of an individual to carry a weapon concealed, when upon a journey, in an affirmative defense. Since 1873, some legal and constitutional historians have sided with Bishop and not the individual rights model.^[57] Other legal and constitutional historians have sided with the Individual Rights Model.^[58]

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley^[59] made the first collective right judicial interpretation, despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Presser v. Illinois which some people view as having ruled otherwise in 1886. The Kansas high court declared: This article is about the U.S. state. ...

That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: "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."

The modern formulation of the debate over the Second Amendment as an individual/collective rights dichotomy entered Federal law and scholarship when it was employed in a widely-cited Harvard Law Review article in 1915 by the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court, Lucilius A. Emery. He noted that "the right guaranteed is not so much to the individual for his private quarrels or feuds as to the people collectively for the common defense against the common enemy, foreign or domestic."^[60] The Harvard Law Review is a journal of legal scholarship published by an independent student group at Harvard Law School. ... Official language(s) None (English and French de facto) Capital Augusta Largest city Portland Area  Ranked 39th  - Total 33,414 sq mi (86,542 km²)  - Width 210 miles (338 km)  - Length 320 miles (515 km)  - % water 13. ...

Jurisdictions with Civil Law/Roman Law judicial origin

• Corpus Juris Civilis
• Civil law (legal system)
• Roman Law
• Socialist law

Justinian I depicted on a mosaic in the church of San Vitale, Ravenna, Italy The Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law) is the modern name[1] for a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Byzantine Emperor. ... For other uses of civil law, see civil law. ... Using the term Roman law in a broader sense, one may say that Roman law is not only the legal system of ancient Rome but the law that was applied throughout most of Europe until the end of the 18th century. ... It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Socialist Legality. ...

Cuba

Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba "... all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle. ..."

Mexico

"Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States are entitled to have arms of any kind in their possession for their protection and legitimate defense, except such as are expressly forbidden by law, or which the nation may reserve for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, or National Guard; but they may not carry arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations."^[61]

Spain

Per section 149.26 of the Spanish Constitution "The State shall have exclusive competence over ... the use of arms. ..."

Jurisdictions with Religious Law judicial origin

• Hindu law
• Religious law
• Sharia

Hindu law is a general term for the legal system—including philosophy of law and legal procedure—which existed in traditional India and was therefore coterminous with the institutions of the Hindu religion as they related to law in society. ... In the religious sense, law can be thought of as the ordering principle of reality; knowledge as revealed by God defining and governing all human affairs. ... Shariah (Arabic: transliteration: ) is the body of Islamic religious law. ...

Chinese law

According to Chinese law, privately owned firearms are illegal in the Peoples Republic of China. Whoever, in violation of firearm control regulations, secretly keeps firearms or ammunition and refuses to relinquish them shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention.^[62] Chinese law is one of the oldest legal traditions in the world. ... The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) is a communist state, comprising most of the cultural, historic, and geographic area known as China. ...

Notes and references

Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934 in Atlanta, Georgia) is an author and historian, and a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. ... Herbert Levi Osgood (1855–1918) was an American historian of colonial American history. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Anno Domini (or common era), in accordance to the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 10th day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. ... Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934 in Atlanta, Georgia) is an author and historian, and a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era in the 21st century. ... is the 66th day of the year (67th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era in the 21st century. ... is the 66th day of the year (67th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era in the 21st century. ... is the 66th day of the year (67th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... The UK Statute Law Database is a web-accessible database of the statute law of the United Kingdom, hosted by the Ministry of Justice. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era in the 21st century. ... is the 66th day of the year (67th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era in the 21st century. ... is the 66th day of the year (67th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era in the 21st century. ... is the 66th day of the year (67th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Michael C. Dorf is the Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law at Columbia University. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Anno Domini (or common era), in accordance to the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 90th day of the year (91st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Akhil Reed Amar is a Southmayd Professor of Law at the Yale Law School. ... This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Anno Domini (or common era), in accordance to the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 90th day of the year (91st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Wikinews is a free-content news source and a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. ... CBS News logo, used from Sept. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Anno Domini (or common era), in accordance to the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 90th day of the year (91st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... The New York Times is a daily newspaper published in New York City and distributed internationally. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Anno Domini (or common era), in accordance to the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 90th day of the year (91st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... John David Ashcroft (born May 9, 1942) is an American politician who was the 79th United States Attorney General. ... A law review is a scholarly journal focusing on legal issues, normally published by an organization of students at a law school or through a bar association. ... is the 349th day of the year (350th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... 1791 (MDCCXCI) was a common year starting on Saturday (see link for calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Tuesday of the 11-day-slower Julian calendar). ... For other uses, see Alaska (disambiguation). ... This article is about the U.S. state. ... The Harvard Law Review is a journal of legal scholarship published by an independent student group at Harvard Law School. ... 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, a leap year that started on Tuesday of the Anno Domini (or common era), in accordance to the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 90th day of the year (91st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ...

Further reading

• Uviller, H. Richard; William G. Merkel (2002). The Militia and the Right to Arms. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2. 
• A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees, Book by Stephen P. Halbrook; Greenwood Press, 1989, ISBN 0-313-26539-9
• For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Book by Clayton E. Cramer; Praeger Publishers, 1994, ISBN 0-275-94913-3
• The Politics of Gun Control. Book by Roberst J. Spitzer; Chatham House Publishers, 1998, ISBN 1-566-43021-6
• Guns in America: A Reader, Book by Jan E Dizard, Robert Merrill Muth, and Stephen P. Andres, Jr.; New York University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-8147-1878-7

Duke University Press is a book publisher and a part of Duke University. ...

See also

• Self-defense (theory)
• Gun politics
• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Gun politics in the United Kingdom
• Gun politics in the United States
• Law of arms
• Coat of arms
• Grant of Arms