Jump to content

Right to keep and bear arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.202.205.1 (talk) at 22:41, 11 February 2010 (→China (People's Republic of)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For other uses, see Right to bear arms (disambiguation).

The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1]

The phrase "right to keep and bear arms" was first used in the text of Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Beyond the United States of America, the general concept of a right to bear arms varies widely by country, state or jurisdiction.

China (People's Republic of)

According to PRC law, there are firearms regulations and according to those regulations "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."[2]

Cuba

Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba "When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution.""'

Finland

Further information: Gun politics in Finland

In Finland, citizens need a permission to possess a fire arm. Permission is given by the police and requires a valid reason. The permission may be denied, for example, if the person has criminal background, problems with drugs, alcohol or mental health. The right to possess a fire arm does not include the right to carry it in public, except while hunting. At home, fire arms must be kept behind locks or inoperative. Knives and similar items may not be carried in public.[3][4][5][6]

Korea (Democratic People's Republic of)

Chapter IV, Article 60 of the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) "The State shall (...) arm the entire people and fortify the country on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically."[citation needed]

Mexico

Article 10 of Mexico's Constitution states the following: "Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms."[7]

Sharia law

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms. However, in times of civil strife or internal violence, this right can be temporarily suspended in order to keep peace, as mentioned by Imam ash-Shatibi in his works on Maqasid ash-Shari'ah (The Intents and Purposes of Shari'ah).[need quotation to verify] [8] Jews and Christians are prohibited from bearing arms, are required to be protected by the Islamic State's Military, the state for which they pay the jizyah. [9]' Today, many muslims in heavily populated muslim nations such as Indonesia, Turkey and Bangladesh do not live under Islamic law Sharia at all but instead under civil law. Many others live in countries such as India where Sharia is applied only to family law. Only very few nations attempt to apply Sharia across the legal spectrum. Thus for most muslims Sharia law as does not affect the present day rights concerning arms and he civil and criminal codes will be the main reference.

Spain

Per section 149.26 of the Spanish Constitution "The State shall have exclusive competence over ... the regime for the production, trading, holding and use of weapons"

In practice, there is a tight regime over firearms which are regulated by law and administered by the Gaurdia Civil Intervencion de Armas. The law requires every person carrying or having possession of a firearm to have a licence issued by the Civil Guard Authority. There are separate licence cateogries for officers of the state (e.g. the armed forces, the police and customs officers), personal use, security guards, game hunters large and small, for collectors, sports users and for minors participating in sports. Licences usually are issued for a limited period and are restrictive regarding the class of weapon that may be held.[10]

Switzerland

Further information: Gun politics in Switzerland

Rules regarding firearms in Switzerland differ markedly from those in other European countries. Under Swiss law, certain adult males who have received training in the Swiss armed forces are reservists who are required under law to keep their official firearms at home. All weapons must be kept under lock and key and away from ammunition which must be similarly secured. Swiss citizens keeping their weapons at home must register this fact with the police and must obtain a permit when transfering their weapon from one place to another.

Switzerland has one of the highest uses of firearms for suicide in Europe with more than a third of all suicides being committed in this way.[11] Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[12]

United Kingdom

Further information: English law, Scots Law, Northern Ireland law, and Gun politics in the United Kingdom

English law and Scots law do not in general talk about rights. Modern law exists only to curtail certain actions which are deemed illegal for the common good. Although there was once an English common law right to keep and bear arms (because no law forbade it), this is no longer the case and has not been so since Victorian times. The modern legal situation is that the possession of a firearm requires a firearms certificate or similar shotgun certificate which is granted in accordance with firearms law only to persons who can demonstrate both a need and that they are sufficiently responsible. [13]

Provisions in the Bill of Rights of 1689 (and the similar Claim of Right in Scotland) regarding rights to arms have been overruled by the doctrine of implied repeal and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

General

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibited the carrying of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. This is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.[14]. The law covers not just firearms but also knives. A person cannot merely carry a knife around with him for self defence as the courts will not regard this as reasonable excuse. The threat has to be believed to be real and imminent. [15] A person with fishing tackle and carrying a knife or on a camping expedition would have a reasonable excuse for carrying a knife.

Firearms

Pistols with barrels shorter than 9 inches were first controlled by the 1903 Pistols Act, which placed hurdles in the path of those who were not householders. Pistols, revolvers, rifles and ammunition, but not shotguns, were much more tightly controlled by the Firearms Act of 1920, which made it illegal to possess these weapons without first obtaining a certificate from the police and registering each individual firearm. Less stringent provisions were introduced for shotguns in 1967.[16]

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 certificates can be issued. On a few occasions over the years, permits have been granted to private individuals to keep firearms for personal protection, however these are very limited and exceptional cases.

The Firearms Acts 1936/7 placed additional controls on fully-automatic firearms, effectively restricting them to the armed forces and police. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 was passed which introduced Shotgun Certificates. The act was at least in part a response to the murder by criminals of three policemen the previous year[citation needed], though this had been commited with pistols.[citation needed] The Firearms Act 1968 introduced the concept of compulsory security for rifles and pistols and incorporated the Shotgun Certificate first outlined in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Firearms Act 1982 extended the provision of the 1968 Act, including control of imitation firearms. The Hungerford killings in 1987 was followed by the Firearms Act 1988 which banned centre-fire self-loading and pump action rifles and extended compulsory security to shotguns. The Dunblane massacre in Scotland in 1996 was followed by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which effectively banned all but .22 pistols; and then, after the Labour government led by Tony Blair came into power, the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1997 was introduced, which effectively banned the private possession of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting purposes. Rifles are not yet limited to smallbore, or to competition use and numerous types of rifles and shotguns may still be owned privately. [17]

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has brought certain types of air weapons into the categories of control created by the firearms acts.[18]

The Crown Prosecution Service has published a summary of the laws regarding firearms in England and Wales. [19]

Knives

The following laws[20] apply to the controlled use of knives in the UK; possession of an offensive weapon in a public place (section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953); the possession of a bladed or pointed article in a public place (Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988); trading in flick or gravity knives (restricted under the Offensive Weapons Act 1959), the unlawful marketing of combat knives and publishing adverts for combat knives and using someone to mind a weapon (Violent Crime Reduction Act VCRA 2006). The police have powers entry, seizure, retention and forfeiture(The Knives Act 1997). School staffs have powers to search school students and others (VCRA s.45, 46 and 47). Senior police officers can authorise constables to stop and search persons in a specific area either where a serious public order problem is likely to arise, or look for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments.

The Crown Prosecution Service has published a summary of the laws regarding firearms in England and Wales. [21]

Others

The Firearms Act 1968 also forbids the use of "any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing." This for example covers pepper spray, ammonia, CS gas, and electric shock armaments such as the Taser.

United States

Further information: Law of the United States, Firearm case law in the United States, Gun law in the United States, and Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Historically, United States inherited a legal tradition from England. American historians point to an historic duty of some to keep and bear arms in England predated the invention of firearms, arising during the reign of Henry II, who promulgated the Assize of Arms in 1181, that required knights and all freemen, most of whom were landowners) to possess weapons consisting of a coat of mail, a helmet, a lance and a shield and to bear arms in service of the king.[22][23]

The English Bill of Rights 1689 is a part of the English constitution and mentions a right to have arms, but this part of the text is now considered obsolete in England. [24] However it still has echoes today due the inclusion of a related text in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in the Second Amendment. The English Bill of Rights remains important because it stripped the monarchy of powers and gave more powers and rights to parliament. Among other things, prevented the king from raising a standing army in peace time without the consent of parliament and instead it set out the right of Protestant Englishmen to have "arms suitable for their own defence, regardless of their social and economic station".[25] Thus defence of the nation fell to Protestant subjects and not to the monarch. Later governments would re-establish a standing army (and navy and air force), each pleading loyalty to the constitutional monarch.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century, at a time when there were no police or forces of law enforcement, about the right to have arms being a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[26]

Later parliaments would transfer responsibility for maintaining law and order to the police force, for civil defence planning in times of emergency to local and national government, and national defence to the armed forces under democratic control. Thus the element of the Bill of Rights regarding the personal right to have arms is no longer part of constitutional law. The right to defend oneself remains a basic common law right and the obligation to defend the country when called upon is now enshrined in statute law.

The right to keep and bear arms is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense. Whether this right pertains to individuals acting independently and/or the people acting collectively remains a matter of debate. On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, held that residents of the District of Columbia have an individual right to handguns for self-defense within the home in the case District of Columbia v. Heller while at the same time reaffirming a broad range of federal restrictions on firearms as being constitutional. Also, the large body of state based law regarding the right to firearms and restrictions on firearms remain largely unchanged, though the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to hear a case which asks that the 'individual right' precedence of Heller be applied for the first time against state law.

Civilian usage meaning

The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[27] Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms.[28]

Don Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, cites historic English usage describing the "right to keep and bear their private arms."[29]

Likewise, Sayoko Blodgett-Ford notes a non-military usage of the phrase in pamphlet widely circulated by the dissenting minority dating from the time of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention for the US Constitution:

"[T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed..."[30]

In commentary written by Justice Cummings in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:[31]

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. See Bliss v. Commonwealth, 13 Am. Dec. 251, 12 Ky. 90 (Ky. 1822).[32]

Similarly, in a released Senate report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, states:

They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. "When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men."[33]

Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."[34]

Military service meaning

Some historians have argued that prior to and through the 18th century, the expression "bear arms" appeared exclusively in military contexts, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians.[35][36][37][38]

"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."[35]

However, this conclusion is disputed and may be due to selection bias, which arises from the use of a limited selection of government documents that overwhelmingly refer to matters of military service.[39] Commenting on this previous research, other historians note:

"Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that...have nothing to do with military service...[and] The common law was in agreement. Edward Christian’s edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries that appeared in the 1790’s described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these terms 'everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.' This right was separate from militia duties."[39]

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.

Garry Wills, author and history professor at Northwestern University, has written of the origin of the term bear arms:

"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...".[40]

Garry Wills also cites Greek and Latin etymology:

"... "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."[41]

Historically, the right to keep and bear arms, whether considered an individual or a collective or a militia right, 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.[42]

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. [citation needed]

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 right is often presented in the United States as being an unenumerated, pre-existing right, such as provided for by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, although this belief is controversial.[42]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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."[43]

Akhil Reed Amar similarly notes 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...[44]

Uviller and Merkel hold that the right to bear arms was not reserved for the state, but rather was an individual and personal right for arms only to the extent needed to maintain a well regulated militia to support the state. They also 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."[31][38]

"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."[45]

"...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.."[46]

According to gun-control proponent Sarah Brady, founder of the Brady Campaign, in the United States the meaning of "bear arms" continues to be a matter of dispute and continuing political debate.[47][48]

Early commentary in state courts

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

Approximately thirty-one states 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 U.S. Constitution, did not choose to explicitly include "individual", "self" or "home" wording associated with a right to bear arms for their specific states.

Approximately twenty-eight states 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 U.S. 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 U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, remains a matter of dispute.

Regarding the state interpretations of these state and the federal constitutional rights to bear arms, state courts have addressed the meaning of these specific rights in considerable detail. Two different models have emerged from state jurisprudence: an individual right and a collective right.

Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY)[50] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[51] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. This case has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[52] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in Bliss since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[53]

The Kentucky High Court stated in Bliss, "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.[33]

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The Bliss ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned 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."[54][55]

The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that “a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals.” As noted by Cornell, “Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in Bliss and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted.”[56]

In contrast, in State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, 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",[57] 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." Justice Lacy, in a dissenting opinion in Buzzard, summarizing the majority viewpoint to which he disagreed, 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."[57]

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.[57][58]

Political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.”[59] Professor Eugene Volokh revealed, in the California Political Review, that a statement in a concurring opinion in Buzzard was the only support for a collective right view of the right to keep and bear arms in the 19th century.[60]

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley[61] made the first collective right judicial interpretation.[62] The Kansas high court declared: "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.'"

Modern commentary: three models

Further information: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Three models of interpreting the right to bear arms in the United States commonly exist. These three models are founded on differing interpretations 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.[63]

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.[63] This view was more strongly reflected by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) than had previous interpretations by the Court. Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller there was a split among the federal courts, with nine of the federal circuit courts of appeal supporting a modified collective rights view, two of the federal circuits supporting an individual rights view, and one federal circuit court having not addressed the question.[64]

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 wrote that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations and subsequently federal court rulings have upheld existing gun prohibitions and regulations.[65]

Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, has stated the argument that the Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.[66] "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."[67]

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.[68] 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.

In October 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:

"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."[69][70]

The Emerson decision was consistent with a view of Constitutional interpretation known by its principal advocates[71] as the "Standard Model" view, and alternatively referred to as the "Individualist view".[48][72] There is some dispute whether the "individualist view" predates the collective "militia view" in American jurisprudence. Some assert[who?] the "militia view" first appeared only in the early to mid 1990s.[73][74] A contrasting opinion asserts[who?] the militia view long predates the individualist view, with the individualist view dating back to only 1960.[48][75][76]

In the late twentieth (20th) century, gun advocates argued[77] that the term 'keep and bear arms' means and has meant keeping and bearing private arms for self defense or hunting purposes. The 1986 TV film The Right of the People refers to this for self-defense against crime. [78]

The Second Amendment of the United States has also been viewed by many private Americans, 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". The modern militia movement in the United States 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.[79][80]

The politics of the right to keep and bear arms

Main article: Gun politics

Interest groups, primarily in the United States, exert political pressure for and against legislation limiting the right to keep and bear arms. This political debate in America is organized between those who seek stricter regulations and those who believe gun regulations violate the Second Amendment protection of a right to keep and bear arms.[81] The largest advocacy group in this regard is the National Rifle Association, and its political wing, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. The NRA has been described as one of the largest and most powerful political special interest group in the United States.[23] Several other groups including the Gun Owners of America and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, while smaller in size, are also politically active.[82] The main gun control advocacy group is the Brady Campaign which has been described as considerably less effective than gun-rights organisations.[83]

Dennis Baker of Kings College London has outlined the moral justification for not criminalizing mere gun possession. Baker argues that there are far greater aggregate harms involved in other every day activities and therefore for the utilitarian harm justification for criminalizing mere possession is baseless. It is a remote harm form of criminalization and should be resisted. Dennis J. Baker, Collective Criminalization and the Constitutional Right to Endanger Others. [84]

Notes and references

  1. ^ Wills, Garry To Keep and Bear Arms. New York Review Of Books, September 21, 1995.
  2. ^ "CRIMINAL LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA". Retrieved 2008-05-10.
  3. ^ Fire Arm Act of Finland
  4. ^ Hunting Act of Finland
  5. ^ A letter by the Ministry of the Interior
  6. ^ Public Order Act of Finland
  7. ^ "Mexican Constitution (As amended)" (PDF). pp. Article 10. Retrieved 2009-07-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
  8. ^ ""Purpose of Law" (Book). Imam Al-Shatibi's Theory of the Higher Objectives and Intents of Islamic Law (Paperback).
  9. ^ Goldschmidt, Arthur; Arthur Goldschmidt Jr (2002). A concise history of the Middle East. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. p. 108. ISBN 0-8133-3885-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ Licencing categories in Spain Spanish government in Spanish
  11. ^ Suicide by method (% out of all suicides by country) according to the WHO mortality database (as at November 2006); countries reporting ICD-10 data http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649482/table/T1/
  12. ^ "De-Quilling the Porcupine: Swiss Mull Tighter Gun Laws". Retrieved 2008-01-22.
  13. ^ http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/HO-Firearms-Guidance.pdf?view=Binary Home Office guidlines to Police on granting of a firearms certificate
  14. ^ http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1953/cukpga_19530014_en_1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953
  15. ^ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1984/1.html Court of Appeal ruling on the validity of "self defence" as "reasonable excuse"
  16. ^ "Report 87: [[Psychological Evaluation]] and Gun Control" (PDF). Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 1996. Retrieved 2007-03-07. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  17. ^ "Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 2007-03-07. and "Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  18. ^ "New Legislation". The Metropolitan Police. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  19. ^ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/firearms/ The Crown Prosecution Service. Guidance re Firearms.
  20. ^ http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/violence/violence023.pdf Knife Crime Best Practice Guidelines. Home Office/ACPO
  21. ^ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offensive_weapons_knives_bladed_and_pointed_articles/index.html The Crown Prosecution Service. Guidance re Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles.
  22. ^ Taylor, H. (1908). Page 267. The science of jurisprudence: a treatise in which the growth of positive law is unfolded by the historical method, and its elements classified and defined by the analytical. New York: Macmillan.
  23. ^ a b Carter, Gregg Lee (2002). Guns in American society: an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. p. 29. ISBN 1-57607-268-1. Retrieved 11-30-09. European society was split between an armed nobility and a disarmed peasantry, in England every free man had to possess and be willing to bear arms. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 69 (help) Cite error: The named reference "isbn1-57607-268-1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  24. ^ http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-00293.pdf House of Commons Parliament & Constitution Centre: Bill of Rights 1689. Quote "Laws may be obsolete but still unrepealed. For example, the article covering the right of protestant subjects to bear arms is generally considered to fall into this category"
  25. ^ Brookhiser, Richard (2007) [2006]. What Would the Founders Do? (Paperback ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-465-00820-9.
  26. ^ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
  27. ^ Halbrook, Stephen P. (1994). That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. p. 8. ISBN 0-945999-38-0.
  28. ^ Schmidt, Christopher (2007). "An International Human Right to Keep and Bear Arms". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 15 (3). Williamsburg, Virginia: The College of William & Mary School of Law: 983. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  29. ^ Kates, Jr., Don B. (1983). "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment". Michigan Law Review. 82 (2). The Michigan Law Review Association: 204–273. doi:10.2307/1288537. In unmistakable individual right terms: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. (Emphasis in original) {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  30. ^ Blodgett-Ford, Sayoko (Fall 1995). "The Changing Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms". Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal: 101.
  31. ^ a b Merkel, William G.; Uviller, H. Richard (2002). The militia and the right to arms, or, How the second amendment fell silent. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. pp. 19, Chapter 9 (pages 212–225). ISBN 0-8223-3017-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cite error: The named reference "isbn0-8223-3017-2" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  32. ^ http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html
  33. ^ a b Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate. 2001 Paladin Press. ISBN 1581602545.
  34. ^ Heller, Syllabus, item #1
  35. ^ a b Uviller, H. Richard. & Merkel, William G.: The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the second Amendment Fell Silent , pp 23, 194. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2 Cite error: The named reference "UM194" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  36. ^ Pepper, John; Petrie, Carol; Wellford, Charles F.: Firearms and violence, Page 290. National Academies Press, 2004. ISBN 0309091241
  37. ^ Wills, Garry. To Keep and Bear Arms. New York Review Of Books, September 21, 1995.
  38. ^ a b Williams, David H. (2003). The mythic meanings of the Second Amendment: taming political violence in a constitutional republic. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. p. 5. ISBN 0-300-09562-7. The amendment thus guarantees a right to arms only within the context of a militia, not an individual right to arms for self-defense or hunting. Cite error: The named reference "isbn0-300-09562-7" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  39. ^ a b Cramer, Clayton E.; Olson, Joseph (2008). "What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment?". Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy. 6 (2).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  40. ^ Wills, Garry (2002). A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 257. ISBN 0-684-87026-6.
  41. ^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil pages 256–257. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster.
  42. ^ a b Espohl, Frank (1997). "The Right to Carry Concealed Weapons for Self Defense". Southern Illinois University Law Journal. 22: pp. 151. The right of self-preservation, including the right of self-defense, has been suggested to be within the protection of the Ninth Amendment. Thus, although some courts have refused to hold that the Ninth Amendment protects a right to possess firearms, laws which restrict the ability of law abiding citizens to possess firearms for the purpose of self-defense could be said to violate the Ninth Amendment. Another common interpretation of the Ninth Amendment is that it protects rights which were recognized at common law as being among the "fundamental rights of Englishmen." The common law, as described in Blackstone's Commentaries, has been carried into American jurisprudence. One such right protected at common law was the right to self-defense and the right to possess and carry weapons for defensive purposes. Hobbes described the right to self-defense as a fundamental natural right of which persons can not justly be deprived by any law or covenant. Blackstone listed self-defense and the right to carry weapons for self-defense as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. Blackstone further described the right to self-defense as "the primary law of nature, so it is not, nor can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); External link in |title= (help)
  43. ^ McAffee, Thomas B. (1997-03). "Bringing Forward The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: Do Text, History, Or Precedent Stand In The Way?". North Carolina Law Review: 781. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  44. ^ Amar, Akhil (1992-04). "The Bill Of Rights And The Fourteenth Amendment". Yale Law Journal: 1193. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  45. ^ Uviller, H. Richard. & Merkel, William G.: The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent , Page 23. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2
  46. ^ Uviller, H. Richard. & Merkel, William G.: The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent , Page 24. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2
  47. ^ Brady, Sarah (2002). A Good Fight. Public Affairs. ISBN 1586481053.
  48. ^ a b c Spitzer, Robert J. (2003). The Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" and United States v. Emerson. 77 St. John's L. Rev. Cite error: The named reference "Spitzer000" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  49. ^ Volokh, Eugene (2006). "State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions". UCLA. Retrieved 2008-05-10.
  50. ^ a b Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Littell 90 (KY 1882).
  51. ^ Kentucky's Second Constitution (1799)
  52. ^ United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. quote: "...all citizens had the unabridgable right to bear arms for self-protection as well as for militia purposes and that a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons was violative of the Second Amendment (see Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. (Ky) 90, 13 Am. December 251 (1822))...
  53. ^ Weir, William (1997). A Well regulated militia: the battle over gun control. North Haven, CT: Archon Books. pp. 35–36. ISBN 0208024239.
  54. ^ Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980's. 10 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |pagest= ignored (help)
  55. ^ Two states, Alaska and Vermont, do not require a permit or license for carrying a concealed weapon to this day, following Kentucky's original position.
  56. ^ Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA — The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 147–149. ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5.
  57. ^ a b c State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (2 Pike) 18 (1842).
  58. ^ Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5. "Dillon endorsed Bishop's view that Buzzard's "Arkansas doctrine," not the libertarian views exhibited in Bliss, captured the dominant strain of American legal thinking on this question."
  59. ^ Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun control: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 140–143. ISBN 0-87436-695-X.
  60. ^ Volokh, Eugene (November/December 1988). "Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, September 23, 1998". California Political Review: 23. A recent exhaustive study reveals that there was exactly one statement in the 1800s cases or commentaries supporting the collective rights view, a concurring opinion in an 1842 Arkansas state court case. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  61. ^ City of Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230 (1905).
  62. ^ Cornell, Saul (2006). A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA – The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 258. ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5. "… the Kansas Supreme Court had used a similar formulation of the right to bear arms a decade earlier, describing this right as one that "refers to the people as a collective body.""
  63. ^ a b Dorf, Michael (October 31, 2001). "Federal Court of Appeals Says the Second Amendment Places Limits on Gun Control Legislation". Findlaw-Writ. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
  64. ^ Liptak, Adam (May 6, 2007). ""A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary"". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-31. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  65. ^ "The Volokh Conspiracy - Yet Another Early Post-Heller Second Amendment Case:". Retrieved 2009-02-21.
  66. ^ Amar, Akhil (November 2, 2001). "Guns and the Constitution: Telling The Right Second Amendment Story". Findlaw-Writ. Retrieved 2008-03-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  67. ^ Interview with Nadine Strossen, David Shankbone, Wikinews, October 30, 2007.
  68. ^ Cooley, Thomas M. & Angell, Alexis C.: A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union, Page 427. Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1890.
  69. ^ United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001).
  70. ^ The cited excerpt from the Emerson decision reflects some of the court's lengthy analysis of Second Amendment jurisprudence (Spitzer 2003)(Reynolds 2002). This analysis garnered considerable attention and scrutiny by legal experts. Shortly after the decision, Attorney General John Ashcroft directed the adoption of the Emerson court's view as the policy of the Justice Department in a memo to all ninety-three United States Attorneys in November 2001. In contrast, legal critics of the "individualist view" repudiated the Emerson analysis on various grounds. Judge Robert M. Parker, while concurring in the Emerson result, labeled the majority's analysis as obiter dicta, irrelevant to the outcome of the case (see Emerson, Spitzer 2003). Moreover, the thoroughness of the Emerson analysis was criticized because the court's rendered opinion relied substantially on interpretations submitted in a "brief presented by one party" (Spitzer 2003).
  71. ^ Uviller, H. Richard (2002). The Militia and the Right to Arms. Duke University Press. pp. 246–247. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Per Uviller and Merkel the Standard Model appears to have the endorsement of a large number of reputable law professors,[who?] most writing as advocates, who have written a great many articles advocating the hypothesis. Though, the Standard Model has very little support among academic historians,[who?] let alone specialists in eighteenth century political thought.
  72. ^ The term "Standard Model" was coined in 1995 by Glenn H. Reynolds in A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 TENN. L. REV. 461, 463 (1995).
  73. ^ Reynolds, Glenn H. (2002). Telling Miller's Tale: A Reply to Yassky. 65 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 113.
  74. ^ "The Dormant Second Amendment?" by Daniel C. Palm at the Claremont Institute.
  75. ^ Hays, Stuart R. (1960). The Right to Bear Arms: A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation. 2 WM. & MARY L. REV. 381. p. 381.
  76. ^ Bliss dates to 1822, and was the first judicial case to establish the individual view. In contrast, Law review articles advocating the militia (collective) view published before 1960 include: S.T. Ansell, Legal and Historical Aspects of the Militia, 26 YALE L. J. 471, 474-80 (1917); John Brabner-Smith, Firearm Regulation, 1 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 400, 409-412 (1934); Victor Breen et al., Federal Revenue as a Limitation on State Police Power and the Right to Bear Arms-Purpose of Legislation as Affecting Its Validity, 9 J. B. ASS'N KAN. 178, 181-82 (1940); Lucilius A. Emery, The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 28 HARV. L. REV. 473, 475-77 (1915); George I. Haight, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 2 BILL RTS. REV. 31, 33-35 (1941); Daniel J. McKenna, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 12 MARQ. L. REV. 138, 145 (1928)
  77. ^ e.g., Senator O. Hatch: "They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. "When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference." as noted in Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate. 2001 Paladin Press. ISBN 1581602545.
  78. ^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster.
  79. ^ Mulloy, D. J. (2004). American extremism history, politics and the militia movement. Pages 116-117. Routledge studies in extremism and democracy. London: Routledge.
  80. ^ "Chicago Kent Law Review, Vol. 76:103 Jack N. Rakove" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-01-10.
  81. ^ Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 3. ISBN 0-8476-8614-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  82. ^ Wilson, Harry Leon (2007). Guns, gun control, and elections: the politics and policy of firearms. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 171. ISBN 0-7425-5347-7.
  83. ^ Warren, Kenneth S. (2008). Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, Inc. p. 291. ISBN 1-4129-5489-4.
  84. ^ Criminal Justice Ethics 2009;28(2):168-200[1]

Further reading

  • Cramer, Clayton E. (1994). For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-94913-3.
  • Dizard, Jan E. (1999). Guns in America: A Reader. New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-1878-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Halbrook, Stephan P. (1989). A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-26539-9.
  • Spitzer, Robert J. (1998). The Politics of Gun Control. Chatham House Publishers. ISBN 1-566-43021-6.
  • Uviller, H. Richard (2002). The Militia and the Right to Arms. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Dennis J. Baker, ‘Collective Criminalization and the Constitutional Right to Endanger Others,’ 28(2) Criminal Justice Ethics 168 (2009).

<http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/rcre>

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&oldid=343433765"