Right to keep and bear arms
||This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their own arms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others. In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standing common law right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions. In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.
The phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was first used in the text of the United States Bill of Rights (coming into law as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States), although similar legal wording can be found in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 and the English Bill of Rights 1689 which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence". Beyond the United States of America, and especially in countries without a common law tradition, the general concept of a right to bear arms varies widely by country, state or jurisdiction ranging from being recognized to being non-existent. In addition, even within jurisdictions which long had a common law tradition, but no written constitution, Parliamentary supremacy has also largely removed the historical English common law people's right to arms since the early 20th Century, such as in the United Kingdom (in 1903), Canada, and Australia. However, in countries such as the United States, with a common law tradition, and with a written constitution dating to the 18th Century in place of a Parliament, the "right to keep and bear arms" continues to exist. Specifically, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law. British traditions such as the monarchy were rejected by the U.S. Constitution, but many English common law traditions such as the right to keep and bear arms, habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties were adopted in the United States. Significant elements of English common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States, because they have never been rejected by American courts or legislatures. Approximately one third of the world's population (approximately 2.3 billion people) live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law.
See also - Australian mass murders for a list of major crimes which impacted on gun legislation.
There is no right to own firearms that is recognized or upheld by the federal or state and territory governments of Australia. Receiving a license depends on the discretion of police as to need and appropriateness, and therefore a privilege rather than a right. The laws strictly forbid ownership for the explicit purpose of self-defense. Exceptions are security guards and police. Carrying weapons on the person is illegal, even if the owner is licensed — there is no 'carry permit'. A genuine reason must be given when applying for a permit, and several valid categories such as sport, hunting or collecting are specified (excepting self-defence). As with most other jurisdictions persons with criminal convictions cannot acquire a permit.
Historically, controls on firearm ownership have usually followed major crimes which resulted in public outcry. This resulted in an incoherent collection of regulations — following the fact that Australia is a federal country. Legality varied wildly between jurisdictions, approaching American latitudes in places like Queensland and Tasmania. The current licensing and permit regime was enacted following the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania and has largely converged all jurisdictions to a similar standard. The present pressures on gun law legislation in Australia arise from organised-crime activity, particularly the drug trade. Australia has been an agrarian country for much of its history, and therefore there is a significant population of gun owners.
In Canada, although citizens do not have a constitutional right to bear arms, gun ownership is allowed, regulated and many models of firearms are not available or are prohibited. Certain models are classified as prohibited firearms, as defined by the Firearms Act. Possession of a restricted firearm requires a Restricted Possession and Acquisition License or RPAL. An RPAL may be obtained at the same time as, or subsequent to, a PAL with additional testing and scrutiny by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. An Authorization to Transport allows RPAL holders to transport their restricted firearms directly to and from gun ranges and gunsmiths or to a change of address.
Under certain circumstances, an Authorization to Carry may be issued, allowing one to carry a loaded restricted firearm on their person; however, these permits are rarely acquired by ordinary citizens. In 2002, only 6172 permits were issued across the entire country and over 94% were related to armoured vehicle protection and related services.
Citizens meeting certain requirements may legally acquire firearms that are not automatic or semi-automatic. The requirements for eligibility include obtaining a certification of mental health, having a fixed address, and having a secure storage method. Firearm owners also must agree that firearms that are legally acquired, along with the secure storage location, may be inspected at any time between the hours of 8 AM to 10 PM upon a request of the national police. It is illegal for citizens to acquire ammunition other than what is used in the specific firearms that are registered to them. Upon the death of a registered gun owner, the person responsible for the estate shall transfer the firearm(s) to a legally eligible and registered owner within 90 days, or else must turn in the firearm(s) to either the closest military facility or the closest national police station. In practice, single shot and double barrel shotguns, lever action rifles, and revolvers account for the majority of the registered civilian firearms owned by citizens, although any firearms that are not automatic or semi-automatic may be legally owned by citizens. Firearms may be used for legal hunting, outside of the home or business, or, within one's home or business, for legal defense.
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."
Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba states the following: "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."
Czech Republic 
To possess firearms in Finland, citizens require a valid reason, such as recreation or exhibition, and licensed by local police. Permission may be denied if the citizen has a criminal background or a history of substance abuse or mental illness. The right to possess a firearm does not include the right to carry it in public, except while hunting. At home, firearms must be kept behind locks or inoperative. Knives and similar items may not be carried in public.
|This section requires expansion. (May 2013)|
Gun ownership in India is not a right, but a privilege. Originally promulgated by British colonists against the opinion of noted Indian nationalists, the repressive legislation has nonetheless been carried forward and made even more repressive by successive Governments in independent India.
According to the licensing service for a private carry permit, a permit may be issued to a legal resident over the age of 21, that is working or living in dangerous zones defined by the Ministry; an individual who works in specific professions listed by the Ministry or individuals who served in the Israeli Defense Force or other military agencies, at the rank of Captain or equivalent (currently serving in the standing army or reserves), retired officers at a rank of Lt. Colonel, or active reserve members of specific special forces units. The granting of a private weapon permit is neither an inherent statutory right nor automatically approved. An applicant is vetted medically and by the police, and even then the request can still be denied by the licensing officer, though a denial can be appealed.
With the exception of law enforcement and defense force personnel, ownership of handguns and rifles are prohibited in Japan. Exceptions are made for firearms with cultural/artistic value (i.e. museum pieces) and for class 4 air pistol competitors, such as Olympic athletes. For Shotguns there is a registration process which you must complete. These are to be used only for hunting and pest control purposes.
Article 10 of Mexican Constitution of 1917 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."
Legal right 
Since 1917 Mexican citizens have had the right to possess firearms "except those expressly prohibited by law". However after rioters looted gun stores in Mexico City in the 1960s, the Mexican government began to restrict wholesale gun ownership. By 1995, the government had closed the last private gun stores and given the military a monopoly on gun sales.
The country now only has one official gun store, the "Directorate for Arms and Munitions Sales" in Mexico City. Located near the army's main headquarters, the two-room building is heavily guarded. All Mexican citizens who wish legally possess firearms must abide by regulations and limitations in order to make a weapons purchase at the store. They are as follows:
- Prospective customers need a permit from the army that can take up to several months to receive.
- Limited amounts of ammunition they can buy each month
- Where an individual can take the gun
- Who gun owners can sell it to
- All privately owned guns must be registered with the Mexican military
- If Owners want to transport their firearms outside their homes they must obtain permit that must be renewed annually.
Owning a gun 
Gun control laws in Mexico are extremely strict in comparison to the United States, making it difficult for the average citizen to purchase anything larger than a .22 caliber. Article 11 (of the Mexican Constitution) " Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos" lists prohibited "military firearms" in Mexico. They include:
- Anything full-auto.
- Any semi-auto handgun larger than .380 (e.g., 9mm, .38 Super, or larger).
- Any revolver in .357 Magnum or larger.
- Any rifle in larger than .30 caliber.
- Any shotgun larger than 12 gauge or with a barrel shorter than 25 inches.
Mexico's constitution has a right to keep and bear arms for its citizens. However, it is much more restrictive than the USA's Second Amendment:
- Members of hunting clubs may be able to acquire hunting guns in of a non-prohibited caliber.
- All applications must go through the single national gun store in Mexico City for approval. Approval will be denied once you own more than 2 handguns or 10 long guns.
- Carry permits exist for outside of your home, but are rarely granted.
- Mexican citizens and immigrants can have firearms in their homes, and only of permitted firearms. The privilege of carrying a firearm outside of one's home is limited to what is authorized by Mexican federal law.
- All privately owned firearms are registered with the Mexican army.
Mexico's gun laws are very restrictive, and extremely harsh if you do not follow them and unlike Canada, where you're likely to be turned away at the border if you have unauthorized firearms or ammo, unwary visitors to Mexico have been imprisoned in Mexican jails for five years due to a single spent shell casing in their vehicle. Where there are prohibitions, there are penalties. The penalties for possession of prohibited "military firearms" include: 3–12 months in prison for bayonets, sabers and lances, 1–7 years for .357 magnum revolvers and any revolver larger than a .38 Special, and 2–12 years for other prohibited weapons.
These are the possible legal consequences of being convicted of possessing illegal firearms in Mexico:
- Jail time and vehicle seizure.
- Separation from your family, friends, and your job, and likely substantial financial hardship.
- Court costs and other fees ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars on legal defense.
- A 30-year sentence in a Mexican prison if found guilty.
The consequences of possessing a knife on your person in Mexico, even a pocketknife are:
- A criminal charge with possession of a deadly weapon.
- Weeks could be spent in jail waiting for trial, and if convicted, one may be sentenced to up to five years in a Mexican prison.
- Tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees, court costs, and fines.
North Korea 
Chapter IV, Article 60 of the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) "The State shall implement the line of self-reliant defence, the import of which is to arm the entire people, fortify the country, train the army into a cadre army and modernize the army on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically."
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 to keep peace and prevent harm, as mentioned by Imam ash-Shatibi in his works on Maqasid ash-Shari'ah (The Intents and Purposes of Shari'ah) Citizens not practicing Islam are prohibited from bearing arms and are required to be protected by the Islamic State's Military, the state for which they pay the jizyah. In exchange they do not need to pay the zakat.
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 Intervención de Armas unit of the Guardia Civil. 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 categories 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.
Although the Swiss do not have a constitutional right to bear arms, Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation. Up until December 2009, these men were required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes as long as they were enrolled in the armed forces. Since January 2010, they have the option of depositing their personal firearm at a government arsenal. They are not allowed to keep ammunition for these firearms in their homes, however, and ammunition is stored at government arsenals. Up until September 2007, soldiers received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.
Switzerland may have one of the highest personal gun ownership rates in the world. It has an overall low crime rate by European standards, but it has one of the highest rates of gun homicide, and the highest gun suicide rate in Europe.
Swiss gun laws are considered to be restrictive. Owners are legally responsible for third party access and usage of their weapons. Licensure is similar to other Germanic countries. In a referendum in February 2011 voters rejected a citizens' initiative which would have obliged armed services members to store their rifles and pistols on military compounds, rather than keep them at home, and required that privately owned firearms be registered.
United Kingdom 
Until recently, English statute was not concerned with absolute rights and rights that were recognized in law, such as the right to life have traditionally been part of the common law. There is an English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-protection but the possession of certain arms is controlled for the common good. The right to bear arms was not specifically made legal until the Bill of Rights 1689. The first serious control on firearms after this was not made until the passing of the Pistols Act 1903 more than 200 years later.
Modern-day possession of guns operates as follows: everything that isn't prohibited under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 must be held on a section 1 firearms certificate, unless it is a section 2 shotgun and can thus go on a Shot Gun Certificate. The requirements for a firearms certificate are more demanding than that of a Shot Gun Certificate.
Police officers in Great Britain do not routinely carry firearms but do typically carry a baton and/or pepper spray. In recent years Tasers have controversially been deployed against citizens, occasionally in error. Police that do carry firearms regularly are typically those guarding national ports of entry, those engaged with diplomatic security, Royal Protection officers, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary or officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Police officers carrying semi-automatic rifles were employed across London during the 2012 Olympics as a deterrent to terrorism and can occasionally be seen year-round at major London rail stations and other areas of high public concentration.
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. 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 do not regard this as reasonable excuse. Since 1972, in the Queens Bench court case Evans v. Hughes, the threat has to be believed to be real and imminent. A person with fishing tackle and carrying a knife or on a camping expedition would have a reasonable excuse for carrying a knife. Non locking, folding knives with a blade under 3 inches, may be carried freely without "reasonable excuse", however the police and courts regard them as an offensive weapon if used as such. It was not considered a "reasonable excuse" to carry a weapon for self-defence, unless his job carried a high risk of being attacked by criminals such as people carrying money to a bank, security guards and certain people who worked for the government. Since 1973, security guards and others are not allowed to carry truncheons and other weapons as part of their duties and only police are allowed to carry weapons.
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.
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, though this had been committed with handguns. 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 limited to smallbore, or to competition use and numerous types of rifles, shotguns and black-powder pistols and longarms, may be owned privately. 
The Crown Prosecution Service has published a summary of the laws regarding firearms in England and Wales.
The following laws 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 of entry, seizure, retention and forfeiture (The Knives Act 1997). School staff members have powers to search school students and others (VCRA s.45, 46 and 47 & S550aa of the Education Act 1996). 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 (S60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994).
The Crown Prosecution Service has published a summary of the laws regarding knives in England and Wales.
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" by the public. This, for example, covers pepper spray, ammonia, CS gas, and electric shock armaments such as the Taser and Stun gun.
United States 
In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The text of the amendment reads:
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.
English precedent 
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689, which restricted the right of the English Crown to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. The 1689 Bill of Rights restricted the right of the monarch to have a standing army and to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. It did not create a new right to have arms, but instead rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II which extended the right to Catholics and Protestant dissenters in addition to upholding prior legislation that limited the ownership of arms to certain social classes. The English Bill of Rights firmly established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the 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 auxiliary to the "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.
Civilian usage meaning 
The right to keep and bear arms, which is protected under the second amendment, 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 the people acting collectively has been the topic of several Supreme Court decisions. 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 ruled in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago that the right to keep and bear arms applies to state governments via the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
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. 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.
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..."
In commentary written by Judge Garwood in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in 2001 that:
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).
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."
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."
Military service and civilian usage meanings 
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.
"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."
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. 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 1790s 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."
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about 1330.
"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...".
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."
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.
This right is often presented in the United States as synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution refers to a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms:
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, interpreted by some as providing for unenumerated rights, and therefore implicitly a right to keep and bear arms:
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."
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...
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."
"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."
"...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.."
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.
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) addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799): "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." 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."
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." The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.
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 1980s, 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."
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."
Aymette v. State, 21Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), In Aymette, the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment , the court wrote: “The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.”
- 1. The act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which prohibits any person from wearing any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon in form, shape or size resembling a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick under his clothes, or concealed about his person, does not conflict with the 26th section of the first article of the bill of rights, securing to the free white citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.
- 2. The arms, the right to keep and bear which is secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment; the legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare.
- 3. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand, and the rulers on the other; and although this right must be inviolably preserved, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
The Georgia supreme court ruled in Nunn v. Georgia (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on second amendment grounds. The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said "Nunn" Perfectly captured the in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause.
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
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", 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."
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.
Political scientist Earl Kruschke has categorized both Bliss and Buzzard as being "cases illustrating the individual view." 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.
Salina v. Blaksley 
In 1905, the Kansas Supreme Court in Salina v. Blaksley made the first collective right judicial interpretation. 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 
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.
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. 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.
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.
Nadine Strossen, President of the American Civil Liberties Union, has stated the argument that the Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation. "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."
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. 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.
"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."
The Emerson decision was consistent with a view of Constitutional interpretation known by its principal advocates as the "Standard Model" view, and alternatively referred to as the "Individualist view". 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. A contrasting opinion asserts[who?] the militia view long predates the individualist view, with the individualist view dating back to only 1960.
In the late twentieth (20th) century, gun advocates argued 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.
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. Those supporting the modern militia movement in the United States have quoted the words of the founding fathers on websites and in publications. These quotes generally align not with the Federalists, but rather with the Anti-Federalists, who opposed the ratification of the Constitution but were the driving force behind the Bill of Rights.[better source needed]
The politics of the right to keep and bear arms 
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. 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 groups in the United States. 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. The main gun control advocacy group is the Brady Campaign which has been described as considerably less effective than gun-rights organizations.
See also 
- Gun politics
- Gun politics in the United Kingdom
- Gun politics in the United States
- One handgun a month law
- Political arguments of gun politics in the United States
- Right of self-defense
- Uniform Firearms Act
Notes and references 
- 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.
- 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.
- State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
- Wills, Garry (September 21, 1995). "To Keep and Bear Arms".
- Lammi, Glenn G.; Chang, James (December 17, 2004). "Michigan High Court Ruling Offers Positive Guidance on Challenges to Tort Reform Laws". Legal Backgrounder (Washington Legal Foundation) 19 (46). ISBN 10563059 Check
- Milestones! 200 Years of American Law: Milestones in Our Legal History. By Jethro Koller Lieberman. Published by West, 1976. Original from the University of California. Digitized Jun 11, 2008. ISBN 0-19-519881-6, ISBN 978-0-19-519881-2, pg. 16 
- Firearms Act (S.C. 1995, c. 39). Department of Justice. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
- RCMP 5592: Application for a Possession and Acquisition Licence Under the Firearms Act. RCMP. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
- Form CAFC 679: Authorization to Transport Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Firearms. RCMP. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
- Form CAFC 680: Application for an Authorization to Carry Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Handguns. RCMP. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
- Authorization To Carry Permits, by Province, 1999-2002 Spreadsheet on website of Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Member of Parliament
- "Republica de Chile, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Dirección General de Movilización Nacional, Control de Armas y Elementos Similares, Ley 17798". Retrieved 2013-02-08.
- "CRIMINAL LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA". Retrieved 2008-05-10.
- The Family magazine, or, Monthly abstract of general knowledge, Volume 2. Eli Taylor. 1837. p. 309. Retrieved 2010-06-28.
- "Firearm Act of Finland". Finlex.fi. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- "Hunting Act of Finland". Finlex.fi. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- "A letter by the Ministry of the Interior". Intermin.fi. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- "Public Order Act of Finland". Finlex.fi. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- "Mexican Constitution (As amended)". pp. Article 10. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
- Hawley, Chris (1 April 2009). "Mexico: Gun controls undermined by U.S.". USA Today. Retrieved 27 December 2011.
- "A Practical Guide to Mexico's Gun Laws for Americans". panda.com. 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
- "Guns are Illegal in Mexico". U.S. Consulate General Tijuana, Mexico. 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
- "Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Full Text) 1998". Novexcn.com. 1998-09-05. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- Aḥmad Raysūnī (2005). Imam Al-Shatibi's Theory of the Higher Objectives and Intents of Islamic Law. p. 60. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
- "Purpose of Law" (Book). Imam Al-Shatibi's Theory of the Higher Objectives and Intents of Islamic Law (Paperback).
- Goldschmidt, Arthur; Arthur Goldschmidt Jr (2002). A concise history of the Middle East. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. p. 108. ISBN 0-8133-3885-9.
- Licencing categories in Spain Spanish government in Spanish
- The Swiss Army at Europeforvisitors.com.
- Lott, John R. "''Swiss Miss'', John R. Lott writing for The National Review, October 2, 2003". Nationalreview.com. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
- "Hinterlegung der persönlichen Waffe". Logistikbasis der Armee, Eidgenössisches Departement für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport. Retrieved 4 May 2013.
- "Gun laws under fire after latest shooting". Swissinfo. 27 November 2007.
- "Estimating Civilian Owned Firearms" (Press release). Small Arms Survey. September 2011 Number 9. Retrieved January 27, 2013.
- "De-Quilling the Porcupine: Swiss Mull Tighter Gun Laws". Retrieved 2008-01-22.
- "Switzerland rejects tighter gun controls". BBC News Online. 13 February 2011.
- "Switzerland — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law". International Firearms Injury Prevention & Policy. 27 June 2012. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
- "Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 über Waffen, Waffenzubehör und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG)". Swissinfo. 20 June 1997. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
- Kopel, David (1995). "It isn't about duck hunting: The British origins of the right to arms". Michigan Law Review (Michigan Law Review Association) (93): 1333–1362. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
- John Pate (1903-08-11). "Dunblane Massacre Resource Page — Pistols Act, 1903". Dvc.org.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- Home Office guidlines to Police on granting of a firearms certificate
- "Prevention of Crime Act 1953". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- "Court of Appeal ruling on the validity of "self defence" as "reasonable excuse"". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- "Report 87: [[Psychological Evaluation]] and Gun Control" (PDF). Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 1996. Retrieved 2007-03-07. Wikilink embedded in URL title (help)[dead link]
- "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.
- "New Legislation". The Metropolitan Police. Archived from the original on 2007-03-02. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
- "The Crown Prosecution Service. Guidance re Firearms". Cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- "Knife Crime Best Practice Guidelines". Crimereducition.homeoffice.gov.uk.
- "The Crown Prosecution Service. Guidance re Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles". Cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- Young, David E., The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, p.222.
- "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- "Second Amendment". Cornell.edu.
- "McDonald v. Chicago: Second Amendment Applied to States/Municipalities". The Moderate Voice. 2010-06-28. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- 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.
- 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. doi:10.2307/1288537. JSTOR 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)"
- Blodgett-Ford, Sayoko (Fall 1995). "The Changing Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms". Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal: 101.
- 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.
- "UNITED STATES v. EMERSON, No. 99-10331., October 16, 2001 - US 5th Circuit | FindLaw". Laws.findlaw.com. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- Right to Keep and Bear Arms, U.S. Senate. 2001 Paladin Press. ISBN 1-58160-254-5.
- Heller, Syllabus, item #1
- 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
- Pepper, John; Petrie, Carol; Wellford, Charles F.: Firearms and violence, Page 290. National Academies Press, 2004. ISBN 0-309-09124-1
- Wills, Garry. To Keep and Bear Arms. New York Review Of Books, September 21, 1995.
- 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."
- Cramer, Clayton E.; Olson, Joseph (2008). "What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment?". Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 6 (2).
- Wills, Garry (2002). A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 257. ISBN 0-684-87026-6.
- Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil pages 256–257. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster.
- 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"
- "Bill of Rights Transcript Text". archives.gov. 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
- 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
- Brady, Sarah (2002). A Good Fight. Public Affairs. ISBN 1-58648-105-3.
- 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 2008-05-10.
- Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Littell 90 (KY 1882).
- "Kentucky's Second Constitution (1799)" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-05-22.
- United States. Anti-Crime Program. Hearings Before Ninetieth Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Government 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))...
- Weir, William (1997). A Well regulated militia: the battle over gun control. North Haven, CT: Archon Books. pp. 35–36. ISBN 0-208-02423-9.
- Pierce, Darell R. (1982). "Second Amendment Survey". Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in 1980s 10 (1): 155.
- 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.
- Ph.D., Gregg Lee Carter; Carter, Gregg Lee (2012-05-31). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 647–. ISBN 9780313386701. Retrieved 9 March 2013.
- Ph.D., Gregg Lee Carter (2012-05-04). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780313386718. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
- State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (2 Pike) 18 (1842).
- 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."
- 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. "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 (1905).
- 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."
- 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.
- Liptak, Adam (May 6, 2007). "A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-31.
- "The Volokh Conspiracy — Yet Another Early Post-Heller Second Amendment Case:". Retrieved 2009-02-21.
- Amar, Akhil; Vikram Amar (November 2, 2001). "Guns and the Constitution: Telling The Right Second Amendment Story". Findlaw-Writ. Retrieved 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)
- 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 1-58160-254-5.
- 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). Archived from the original on 2007-12-01. Retrieved 2008-01-10.
- Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 3. ISBN 0-8476-8614-0.
- Carter, Gregg Lee (2002). Guns in American society: an encyclopedia of history, politics, culture, and the law. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. p. 434. ISBN 1-57607-268-1.
- 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.
- 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.
- Weapons in Yemen, Yemeni gun market.
- , Gun policy in Yemen
Further reading 
- Baker, Dennis (2009). "Collective Criminalization and the Constitutional Right to Endanger Others". Criminal Justice Ethics.
- 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.; Robert Merrill Muth, and Stephen P. Andres, Jr. (1999). Guns in America: A Reader. New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-1878-7.
- 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.
- Malcolm, Joyce (1996). To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674893078.
- Malcolm, Joyce (2004). Guns and Violence: The English Experience. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674016088.
- Spitzer, Robert J. (1998). The Politics of Gun Control. Chatham House Publishers. ISBN 1-56643-021-6.
- Uviller, H. Richard; William G. Merkel (2002). The Militia and the Right to Arms. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2.