right to arms

For myself, I believe all peoples have an inherent right to defense of self, family, property, and community. At times delegated “guardians” may be able to provide a good portion of that defense, such as with police or military personnel, but not always. Even assuming that these entities will be available and willing to aid in your defense in some instances, they will never be able to provide for the aforementioned defenses at all times, and in an unacceptable majority of cases will not be there when actually needed. Ultimately the right of the individual to act in their own defense, must be preserved.

The idea of the individual’s right to self-defense dates back even past the formation of the United States. Sir William Blackstone, an English judge and politician wrote in the 1760’s the “commentaries on the laws of England”[Reference 1].

In his commentaries he states:

“It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. These are,

[… skipping to the one that deals with the right to arms]

5. 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 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. 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.”

The “same statute” to which Blackstone refers to is a statute found in the English bill of rights of 1689. This document endorses the right to keep arms and was extended also to the colonists prior to the revolutionary war as they were still at that time, English subjects.

The only logical conclusion to this is that the right to arms for defense of self and community/state is a preexisting and inherent right of the people.

First we will look at the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”. As mentioned, this right “the right of the people” preexisted the penning of the constitution. “The right…” indicates a preexisting right or circumstance, while “of the people” clearly delineates who holds that right. All this to say that the second amendment of the constitution in no way created the right to keep and bear arms, it only enumerates it as a means of providing a legal protection for it.

There are some who would argue against this point and say that the right to bear arms is only in existence because of, and is limited to the scope of, the second amendment. This argument can be neatly laid to rest simply by reading the 9^th amendment:

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

This makes, or should make, it clear that inherent rights need not have been enumerated in the bill of rights in order to be validly claimed by the people. This means that even if the right to arms were not included in the constitution at all… it would still be a right of the people.

It was a subject of concern during the writing and ratification of the constitution that including a specific bill of rights may lead some to believe that anything not included therein was either, not of as great importance, or not a right altogether. The 9^th amendment was created and included specifically to address this concern.

Yet still, there are those who will claim that the right to bear arms applies only to the militia. This is refuted in the text of the amendment itself. The wording is NOT “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms…” it is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”

Additionally, the supreme court case United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez holds that in reference to the term “the people” in the constitution,

“the People” refers to “a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” [Reference 3]

Whatever the intent of the founders may have been in their decision to include the second amendment, it is clear to me, as I hope it will be clear to all who love liberty, that the right to self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms, are rights that can and should be justly claimed by the people.

- D Stuttgart.