Jump to content

Right to keep and bear arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.55.243.243 (talk) at 09:18, 19 November 2007 (→Military service definition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The right to bear arms refers to the right that individuals have to weapons. This right is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense.

Definitions of "bear arms"

In the United States, the meaning of "bear arms" is a matter of recent dispute and continuing political debate.[1][2] One argument is whether the expression involves the rights of the individual to 'bear arms' meaning to 'have arms', or whether it relates to a military service meaning of 'bear arms' as with the functioning and maintenance of a militia.[1]

Military service definition

Uviller and Merkel assert that prior to and through the Eighteenth century, usage of the expression "bear arms" referred to the profession of military service, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians[3][4][5].

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

As an example, the expression 'bear arms' is contained in the United States Declaration of Independence in the sense of 'military service' on a warship, as part of an indictment of the King of Great Britain for conscripting Colonial sailors to serve on British warships.

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

Uviler and Merkle also hold that the right to bear arms is not reserved exclusively for the state, but rather is an individual and personal right for arms so long as that right is essential to maintain a well regulated Militia:

"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."[6]

"...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.."[7]

In issue 46 of The Federalist Papers, published in the New York Packet in January of 1788, James Madison, considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", discusses bearing arms in defense of a free state. In making the case for a federal government, to allay fears that freedom would succumb to the tyranny of a federal government, Madison goes into detail estimating the likely forces a federal government would be able to bring to bear, and contrasting that with the relatively overwhelming numbers of armed citizenry. Madison argues:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

In the above passage, Madison noted the advantage of the organization and leadership from friendly state and local governments "possessing [the citizens'] affections and confidence" in bearing arms against federal tyranny. Madison mentions other scenarios as well, including the tyrannies of Europe, where such friendly state and local governments do not exist, and where the likelihood of success in the struggle against tyranny is thus reduced (though implicitly no less justified, described by Madison as bearing arms to "shake off their yokes"). He states:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

In Federalist 46, James Madison considers a spectum of cases where citizens might bear arms in defense of liberty. Madison conveys that regardless of whether those militias of armed citizens benefit from the organization of state or local "governments possessing their affections and confidence" (as would relatively organized American militias compared to less organized European ones, in Madison's time) it is advantageous to the citizens' cause of liberty to be armed.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term to bear arms as: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," dating to about the year 1330. And, defines the term to bear arms against as: "to be engaged in hostilities with." dating the usage back to about the year 1000 with the epic poem Beowulf[8].

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

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

In the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, in England and the British Colonies, the militia system was based on the principle of the Twelfth Century Assize of Arms, where there was general obligation of adult males to possess arms and cooperate in the work of defense.[9]

The right to have arms

The English Bill of Rights 1689 set out the right of protestants to have arms suitable for their own defense as allowed by law.[10] This was because of the fear the Protestants had in England of being disarmed that lead 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.[10]

In an effort to consolidate power in 17th century England, the Catholic King James II of England sought to disarm Protestants by discharging them from the militia, both in Ireland and in England, replacing them with Catholics. This policy of consolidation also included an aspect of shifting control of the weapons from citizens' militia to the professional army, thereby reducing the number of weapons in the hands of his Protestant subjects and political opponents. This disarmament policy included enforcement of the Game Act, and an archaic measure from 1328 that forbade men to ride armed 'in affray of the peace'.[11]

In modern usage, "arms" is often considered synonymous with "firearms". Historically, however, "arms" has referred to a variety of weapons and armor. [12] In the United States, the term has been used to refer to edged weapons such as the bayonet and sabre. [13]

Historical sources or protections of the right

The right to bear arms varies by country (see State (law)) and at times varies by jurisdiction within a sovereign state.

Jurisdictions with English judicial origin

Main article: English law

Frequently cited sources:

The responsibility to keep and bear arms in jurisdictions operating under English Common Law follows a precedent that predates the invention of firearms, originating contemporaneously with the jury trial and the emergence of the common law system, during the reign of Henry II, who promulgated the Assize of Arms in 1181, which required knights and freemen to keep arms and to bear them in service of the king.[6]. A Common Law right to have arms for self defense was codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (also known as the English Declaration of Rights), at least for Protestants. England, Ireland, the Colonies in North America (which became the United States), Canada, and Australia all received this Common Law inheritance and long maintained a responsibility to keep and bear arms tradition originating from this common basis. Subsequent to this, over the last 80 years, in all these countries except the United States, Parliamentary supremacy has permitted statutory law to be developed that extinguishes the historical common law right to have arms for self defense. Similarly, in the United States, the courts have widely allowed local jurisdictions in some states (e.g., New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey) to license and regulate historical common law rights to have arms for self defense.

United Kingdom

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

 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. 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."[14] The words "as allowed by Law" indicate this was always a qualified rather than an absolute right. However this provision, along with many other pieces of ancient law, has been overruled by the doctrine of implied repeal, the Bill of Rights had no special legal protection as a result of parliamentary sovereignty.

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.[15]

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.[16]

The Firearms Act 1968 placed an absolute ban on certain types of weapons, including automatic or self-loading guns.[17] Since then only the armed forces and police have any right 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.[18] 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.

Following the Dunblane Massacre, the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 criminalised the possession of virtually all handguns in the United Kingdom.

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has brought certain types of air weapons into the categories of control created by the firearms acts.[19]

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 of America

 United States The right to keep and bear arms did not originate fully-formed in the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the codification of the six centuries old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution, the common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms.

This right is often presented in the United States as synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, although this belief is controversial among some factions and is not subscribed to by all.

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.

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." [7]

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

Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet insofar as they secure and recognize fundamental rights -- common law rights -- of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States...[8]

Three models

Modern legal theorists generally identify three models in United States to interpret the right to bear arms. Founded on a reading 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.[20]

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.[21] Though this Individual Rights model must yield to reasonable regulation.[22] 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."[23]

United States federal courts have consistently interpreted the federal right to bear arms in United States as the modified collective right, not an individual right[24] with two recent exceptions in the circuit courts: The 2001 Fifth Circuit court ruling United States v. Emerson and the 2007 D.C. Circuit court ruling Parker v. District of Columbia, both of which introduce principles of an individual right to firearms. Presently, nine of the federal circuit courts support a modified collective rights view, two of the federal circuit courts an individual rights view, and the Supreme Court and one federal circuit court have not addressed the question.[25]

At the state level, each of the fifty United States state constitutions, state laws and state courts address the state based right to bear arms distinctly within their respective jurisdictions.[26] 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.

There is some documentation, seen as conflicting by some, surrounding the creation of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. For example the Anti-Federalist papers state "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state", which in speaks to a personal interpretation of bear arms for person and for state having existed at the time of the Constitutional convention.[27]

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.

For the first time, in October 2001, contrary to established legal precedent,[28] a court ruled that the United States Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms for purposes unrelated to military service.[1] In the case United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:

"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."[29][30]

The Emerson decision was consistent with a view of Constitutional interpretation known by its principal advocates[31] as the "Standard Model" view, and alternatively referred to as the "Individualist view".[2][32] There is some dispute whether the "individualist view" predates the collective "militia view" in American jurisprudence. At least one legal expert asserts the "militia view" as first appearing only in the early to mid 1990s.[33][34] A contrasting expert opinion states the militia view as long predating the individualist view,[35] with the individualist view dating back to only 1960.[2][36][37]

In the late Twentieth Century, gun advocates argued that the term 'bear arms' means and has meant keeping and bearing private arms for self defense or hunting purposes.[38]

"Don Kates writes in the Michigan Law Review that the (Second) amendment clearly refers to personal weapons, since "bear" means "carry," and a person cannot carry certain military weapons, like artillery. This gets things exactly backwards. "Bear Arms" refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek 'hopla pherein' and Latin 'arma ferre') -- one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, 'equipment' (from the root ar-* in verbs like 'ararisko', to fit out). It refers to the 'equipage' of war. Thus 'bear arms' can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the "profession of arms" refers to all military callings."[39]

Jurisdictions with Civil Law/Roman Law judicial origin

Cuba

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

Mexico

 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."[9]

Spain

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

Jurisdictions with Religious Law judicial origin

Chinese law

 People's Republic of China Firearms are illegal in the Peoples Republic of China. Whoever, in violation of firearm control regulations, secretly keeps firearms or ammunition and refuses to relinquish them shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention.[40]

Notes and references

  1. ^ a b c Brady, Sarah (2002). A Good Fight. Public Affairs. ISBN 1586481053. Cite error: The named reference "Brady000" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ a b c Uviller, H. Richard. & Merkel, William G.: The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent , pp 23, 194. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2 Cite error: The named reference "UM194" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ Pepper, John; Petrie, Carol; Wellford, Charles F.: Firearms and violence, Page 290. National Academies Press, 2004. ISBN 0309091241
  5. ^ Wills, Garry. To Keep and Bear Arms. New York Review Of Books, Sept. 21, 1995.
  6. ^ 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
  7. ^ 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
  8. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989
  9. ^ Osgood, Herbert Levi : The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century , Page 499. Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1904.
  10. ^ a b Brookhiser, Richard (2007) [2006]. What Would the Founders Do? (Paperback edition ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-465-00820-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  11. ^ Malcolm, Joyce Lee (2002). Guns and Violence: The English Experience , Page 57-58. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674007530
  12. ^ Wills, Garry To Keep and Bear Arms. New York Review Of Books, Sept. 21, 1995.
  13. ^ 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
  14. ^ "House of Lords Journal Volume 14". 12 February 1689. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  15. ^ "Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons". Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  16. ^ "Report 87: Psychological Evaluation and Gun Control" (PDF). Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 1996. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  17. ^ "Firearms Act 1968". Statute Law Database. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  18. ^ "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.
  19. ^ "New Legislation". The Metropolitan Police. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
  20. ^ Dorf, Michael C. (2001), Findlaw-Writ[1]
  21. ^ Dorf, Michael C. (2001), Findlaw-Writ[2]
  22. ^ Amar, Akhil and Vikram.(2001) Findlaw-Writ[3]
  23. ^ Interview with Nadine Strossen, David Shankbone, Wikinews, October 30, 2007.
  24. ^ Holder, Angela Roddy: The Meaning of the Constitution, Page 64. Barron's Educational Series, 1997. ISBN 0764100998
  25. ^ Liptak, Adam: A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary. New York Times, May 6, 2007. [4]
  26. ^ 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
  27. ^ Ralph Ketcham, ed. (2003). The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. New York, NY: Signet Classic. ISBN 0-451-52884-0.
  28. ^ One U.S. legal scholar, in a detailed review of the relevant Supreme Court precedent and associated lower court decisions, characterized "the anomalous Emerson case" as contradicting a previously "unbroken line" of established and binding precedent in Second Amendment jurisprudence (Spitzer 2003).
  29. ^ United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)
  30. ^ 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).
  31. ^ Uviller, H. Richard (2002). The Militia and the Right to Arms. Duke University Press. pp. pp. 246-247. ISBN 0-8223-3017-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)Per Uviller and Merkel the Standard Model appears to have the endorsement of a large number of reputable law professors, 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, let alone specialists in eighteenth century political thought.
  32. ^ 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).
  33. ^ Reynolds, Glenn H. (2002). Telling Miller's Tale: A Reply to Yassky. 65 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 113.
  34. ^ "The Dormant Second Amendment?" by Daniel C. Palm at the Claremont Institute
  35. ^ Spitzer and others assert that the 'militia view' predates the 'individualist view' ... "in numerous court decisions dating back to the nineteenth century, ... and also in numerous law journal articles dating back decades" (Spitzer 2003)
  36. ^ Hays, Stuart R. (1960). The Right to Bear Arms: A Study in Judicial Misinterpretation. 2 WM. & MARY L. REV. 381.p. 381
  37. ^ Law review articles accepting 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)
  38. ^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster
  39. ^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil pages 256-257. New York, NY. Simon & Schuster
  40. ^ CRIMINAL LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PART TWO, CHAPTER VI Crimes of Obstructing the Administration of Public Order, Article 163

Further reading

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

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms&oldid=172455549"