WikiPortallus: Right to arms.html

The right to keep and bear arms, RKBA,¹ or right to bear arms is the concept that people, individually or collectively, have a right to weapons. Today this is usually interpreted to mean personal guns or the arming of a state militia. This is an important concept in the United States, where the right is protected in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, drafted in 1791, and where the right derived from well-known philosophical and political writings and popular conceptions of English law that existed around the time of the American Revolution, including a tradition of local militias, a common law right to possess weapons, the English Bill of Rights (1689) and a statute, the Assize of Arms, dating back to 1181.

Definitions

Military service

David Kopel writes that though the phrase "bear arms" was not commonly understood as encompassing only militia service,² some historians have found 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.³⁴⁵⁶

However, this unilateral 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.⁷

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.

On the other hand, Sayoko Blodgett-Ford notes non-military usage of the phrase in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:

Don Kates, a professor of constitutional and criminal law, cites historic English usage describing the "right to keep and bear their private arms."⁹

Civilian usage definition

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.¹¹ 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.¹² Particularly in the event of oppression or slaughter of people by governments or racial majorities, researchers have noted that exercise of the right to bear arms internationally is intrinsically linked to a people's ability to possess them,¹³ and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.¹⁴

The bearing of arms by civilians in this sense is exercised in Israel to prevent terrorist attacks on grade schools.¹⁷

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

Likewise, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290, that "The 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."

Historical sources, protections, and extinguishments of the right

Jurisdictions with English judicial origin

The right 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^{citation needed} in 1181, which required knights and freemen to keep arms and to bear them in service of the king.²⁰ 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.

The English Bill of Rights 1689 set out an individual right of Englishmen to have arms suitable for their own defense, permitting Catholics to have personal weapons and allowed Protestants, regardless of their social and economic station, to own firearms.²¹²² 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.

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.²²

In modern usage, "arms" is often considered synonymous with "firearms". Historically, however, "arms" has referred to a variety of weapons and armor.²³ In the United States, the term has been used to refer to edged weapons such as the bayonet and sabre.²⁴

Over the last 80 years, in all the countries that derive their laws from English Common Law 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.

United Kingdom

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.^{attribution needed} 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.

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."²⁵ The words "as allowed by Law" indicate in England this is considered a qualified rather than an absolute right.^{citation needed} 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.

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 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.²⁶

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 1967.²⁷

The Firearms Act 1968 placed an absolute ban on certain types of weapons, including automatic or self-loading guns.²⁸ 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.²⁹ 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 Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has brought certain types of air weapons into the categories of control created by the firearms acts.³⁰

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 States

In the United States, 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 or individuals acting collectively was once a matter of debate, and the basis for any right at all hotly contested. However, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the case District of Columbia v. Heller.

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.

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.

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."³¹

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":

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."⁶¹⁵

According to gun-control proponent Sarah Brady, founder of the Brady Campaign, in the United States the meaning of "bear arms" is a matter of recent dispute and continuing political debate, although this belief is controversial.³⁵³⁶ One argument is whether the expression involves the rights of an individual to 'keep and bear arms', or whether, according to Sarah Brady, it relates exclusively to a military service meaning of 'bear arms' as with the functioning and maintenance of an organized militia, although this belief is controversial.³⁵

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. Each of forty-four states chose to explicitly embody a right to bear arms into its state constitution,³⁷ and six states have explicitly 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.

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),³⁸ which interpreted Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) (the right of Kentuckians to bear arms "in defence of themselves and the state"), as protecting an individual right, in the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as about “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment.”³⁹ 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."⁴⁰

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."³⁸ The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.¹⁸ As mentioned in this quotation "as it existed at the adoption of the constitution" was the pre-existing right in force when Kentucky's First Constitution was drawn in 1799.⁴¹

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."⁴² 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."⁴³⁴⁴

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.”⁴⁵

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",⁴⁶ 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:

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.⁴⁶⁴⁷

Political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being “cases illustrating the individual view.”⁴⁸ 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.⁴⁹

In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley⁵⁰ made the first collective right judicial interpretation.⁵¹ 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

Modern legal theorists^who? generally identify three models of interpreting the right to bear arms in the United States. 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.⁵²

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.⁵² This view was adoped by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). 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.⁵³

Some claim^who? the Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.⁵⁴ 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."⁵⁵

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.⁵⁶ 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.

The Emerson decision was consistent with a view of Constitutional interpretation known by its principal advocates⁵⁹ as the "Standard Model" view, and alternatively referred to as the "Individualist view".³⁶⁶⁰ 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.⁶¹⁶² A contrasting opinion asserts^who? the militia view long predates the individualist view, with the individualist view dating back to only 1960.³⁶⁶³⁶⁴

In the late Twentieth Century, gun advocates argued^who? that the term 'keep and bear arms' means and has meant keeping and bearing private arms for self defense or hunting purposes.⁶⁵

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". This view has been fiercely disputed among some historians and legal scholars.^who? 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.⁶⁶⁶⁷

Jurisdictions with Civil Law/Roman Law judicial origin

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."⁶⁸

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"

Jurisdictions with Religious Law judicial origin

Chinese law

According to Chinese law, privately owned firearms are illegal in the People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan). "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."⁶⁹

Notes and references

^ What does RKBA stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.
^ Kopel, David B. (2002). "What State Constitutions Teach About the Second Amendment". Northern Kentucky Law Review 29 (4): 841-871.
^ 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 "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."
^ Pepper, John; Petrie, Carol; Wellford, Charles F.: Firearms and violence, Page 290. National Academies Press, 2004. ISBN 0309091241
^ Wills, Garry. To Keep and Bear Arms. New York Review Of Books, September 21, 1995.
^ ^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. pp. 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."
^ Cramer, Clayton E.; Olson, Joseph (2008). "What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment?". Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 6 (2). "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.".
^ Blodgett-Ford, Sayoko (Fall 1995). "The Changing Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms". Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal: 101.
^ Kates, Jr., Don B. (November 1983). "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment". Michigan Law Review (The Michigan Law Review Association) 82 (2): 204-273. "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)".
^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil pages 256–257. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster.
^ 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. pp. 8. ISBN 0-945999-38-0.
^ Schmidt, Christopher (February 2007). "An International Human Right to Keep and Bear Arms". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (Williamsburg, Virginia: The College of William & Mary School of Law) 15 (3): 983.
^ Kopel, David B.; Eisen, Joanne D.; Gallant, Paul (2003). "Guns Ownership and Human Rights". The Brown Journal of World Affairs 9 (2): 1–13. "And Bougainville is a reminder that sometimes neither the UN, developed democracies such as Australia, nor the "international community" will defend a people against rapine. The only protectors of the birthright of the people of Bougainville [Papua New Guinea] were the people themselves, bearing their "illicit" firearms.".
^ Shalhope, Robert E. (1982). "The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment". The Journal of American History (Buffalo: William S. Hein & Co) 69: 599-614. "For Burgh the very nature of society was related to whether or not its citizens had arms and were vigorous in their use. "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."".
^ ^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.
^ http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html
^ "Follow the Leader: Israel and Thailand set an example by arming teachers." (2004-09-02). Retrieved on 2008-05-17. "Teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry guns, schools were protected by parents (and often grandpas) guarding them in voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or trip without armed guards. The Police involved the citizens in a voluntary civil guard project “Mishmar Esrachi,” which even had its own sniper teams. The Army’s Youth Group program, “Gadna”, trained 15 to 16-year-old kids in gun safety and guard procedures and the older high-school boys got involved with the Mishmar Esrachi. During one noted incident, the “Herzliyah Bus massacre” (March ’78, hijacking of a bus, 37 dead, 76 wounded), these youngsters were involved in the overall security measures in which the whole area between North Tel Aviv and the resort town of Herzlyiah was blocked off, manning roadblocks with the police, guarding schools kindergartens, etc."
^ ^a ^b Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate. 2001 Paladin Press. ISBN 1581602545.
^ Duhaime, Lloyd (2007-05-07). "1689: The English Bill of Rights". Retrieved on 2008-05-10.
^ 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.
^ Malcolm, Joyce Lee (1983). "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition". Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 10: 285-314. "The English Bill of Rights of 1689, however, not only reasserted, but guaranteed, the right of Protestant subjects to be armed. The qualifying clauses of the Bill that appear to limit arms ownership were, in fact, interpreted in a way that permitted Catholics to have personal weapons and allowed Protestants, regardless of their social and economic station, to own firearms. The ancillary clause "as allowed by Law" merely limited the type of weapon that could be legally owned to a full-length firearm, enforced the ban on shot, and permitted legal definition of appropriate use. The right of Englishmen to have arms was a very real and an individual right.".
^ ^a ^b Brookhiser, Richard (2007) [2006]. What Would the Founders Do? (Paperback edition ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. pp. 35. ISBN 978-0-465-00820-9.
^ Wills, Garry To Keep and Bear Arms. New York Review Of Books, September 21, 1995.
^ David B. Kopel, Clayton E. Cramer, Scott G. Hattrup, A Tale of Three Cities: The Right to Bear Arms in State Supreme Courts Temple Law Review.
^ "House of Lords Journal Volume 14" (12 February 1689). Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
^ "Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons". Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
^ "Report 87: Psychological Evaluation and Gun Control" (PDF). Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (1996). Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
^ Official text of the Firearms Act 1968 as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database
^ "Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved on 2007-03-07. and "Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
^ "New Legislation". The Metropolitan Police. Retrieved on 2007-03-07.
^ McAffee, Thomas B.; Michael J. Quinlan (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.
^ Amar, Akhil (1992-04). "The Bill Of Rights And The Fourteenth Amendment". Yale Law Journal: 1193.
^ 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
^ 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
^ ^a ^b Brady, Sarah (2002). A Good Fight. Public Affairs. ISBN 1586481053.
^ ^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.
^ Volokh, Eugene (2006). "State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions". UCLA. Retrieved on 2008-05-10.
^ ^a ^b Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Littell 90 (KY 1882).
^ United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off, 1967, p. 246. quote: "…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)…
^ Weir, William (1997). A Well regulated militia: the battle over gun control. North Haven, CT: Archon Books. pp. 35–36. ISBN 0208024239.
^ The Second Amendment became effective December 15, 1791, and was still a new concept in 1799.
^ Commonwealth of KY Const. of 1799, art. , x§ 23
^ Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980's 10 (1).
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ ^a ^b ^c State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (2 Pike) 18 .
^ 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. 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.”"
^ Kruschke, Earl R. (1995). Gun control: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 140–143. ISBN 0-87436-695-X.
^ 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. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm#14. ""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."".
^ City of Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230 .
^ 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. 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.””"
^ ^a ^b Dorf, Michael (October 31, 2001). "Federal Court of Appeals Says the Second Amendment Places Limits on Gun Control Legislation". Findlaw-Writ. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
^ Liptak, Adam (May 6, 2007). ""A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary"". The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
^ Amar, Akhil; Vikram Amar (November 2, 2001). "Guns and the Constitution: Telling The Right Second Amendment Story". Findlaw-Writ. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
^ Interview with Nadine Strossen, David Shankbone, Wikinews, October 30, 2007.
^ 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.
^ United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001).
^ 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).
^ Uviller, H. Richard; William B. Merkel (2002). The Militia and the Right to Arms. Duke University Press. pp. 246–247. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2. 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.
^ 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).
^ Reynolds, Glenn H. (2002). Telling Miller's Tale: A Reply to Yassky. 65 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 113.
^ "The Dormant Second Amendment?" by Daniel C. Palm at the Claremont Institute.
^ Hays, Stuart R. (1960). The Right to Bear Arms: A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation. 2 WM. & MARY L. REV. 381. p. 381.
^ 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)
^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster.
^ Mulloy, D. J. (2004). American extremism history, politics and the militia movement. Pages 116-117. Routledge studies in extremism and democracy. London: Routledge.
^ "Chicago Kent Law Review, Vol. 76:103 Jack N. Rakove" (PDF). Retrieved on 2008-01-10.
^ "1917 Constitution of Mexico (As Amended)" Article 10. Retrieved on 2008-03-31.
^ "CRIMINAL LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA". Retrieved on 2008-05-10.

Right to arms.html

Contents