Right to keep and bear arms

Aymette argued that a ban on such weapons is a violation of the provision of the Tennessee constitution that the free white men of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. He claimed that the decision of what weapons to carry and how to carry them is an individual one, beyond the power of the legislature to regulate. 

Nunn challenged his conviction on several grounds, some of which related to the indictment process and are not relevant here. He asserted that the law under which he was convicted violated both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Georgia by infringing the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. 

After reviewing similar cases in other states, the court ruled that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. . . ... 

The defendant argued that his conviction violated his right to keep and bear arms under the Kansas Constitution, which states The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. ... 

There are two legal issues Does the federal firearms tax encroach on powers reserved to the states, and does it infringe on the right to keep and bear arms specified in the Second Amendment ... 

Currently only the Fifth Circuit (see U.S. v. Emerson) has upheld an individual right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court should eventually resolve the conflict between the circuits in favor of this interpretation, a stricter test would presumably be applied to state gun laws. Of course, some regulations might still pass such scrutiny. 

King Alfred of Saxon England s laws give every man the right to keep and bear arms but prohibit murder and other crimes. 

England s King Cnut s laws recognize the right to keep and bear arms, the right to self-defense, and the right to hunt on one s own land. 

In the bloodless Glorious Revolution, William and Mary defeat English King James II, abolish the standing army, and restore— to Protestants only—the right to keep and bear arms. 

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution is approved. It includes the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to maintain a strong militia as a protector of liberty. 

In the Kenmcky case of Bliss v. Commori wealth, the court holds that the state constitution prohibits any interference with the right to keep and bear arms, even concealed weapons. 

Some southern states argue that black slaves do not have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because they are not citizens. ... 

In U.S. V. Cruikshank a group of Ku Klux Klansmen are convicted of depriving persons of color their right to keep and bear arms. The... 

In Moore v. East Cleveland the Supreme Court states (in passing) that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the specific guarantees contained in the Constimtion of the United States, but this ruling is not applied to gun control cases. 

Sanford Levinson, McCormick Professor at the University of Texas. Although he remains generally politically liberal, Levinson s studies of the Second Amendment led him to the conclusion that it did protect an individual right to keep and bear arms and that it should be taken seriously by constitutional scholars. His 1989 paper The Embarrassing Second Amendment helped touch off a renewed debate about the amendment s meaning and the suggestion that it should be, like the First and Fourth Amendments, incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to the states. 

Lawrence Pratt, head of the Gun Owners of America and a vigorous advocate for the right to keep and bear arms on philosophical as well as constitutional grounds. Pratt has aroused controversy because of alleged connections, which he denies, with white separatist groups. 

Works in this section defend the right to keep and bear arms and/or oppose gun control for a variety of reasons. 

Gottlieb, Alan M. Politically Correct Guns Please Don t Rob or Kill Me. Bellevue, Wash. Merril Press, 1996. Takes on the gun control advocates by deploying humor and sarcasm but also provides a useful (though one-sided) overview. Gottlieb is chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 

Carmer, Clayton E. For the Defense of Themselves and the State The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. West-port, Conn. Praeger Publishers, 1994. Explores the conflict between the original intent of the Second Amendment, well established by scholarship as conferring an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court and most other courts that have pre-... 

Gottlieb, Alan M. Gun Rights Affirmed The Emerson Case. Bellevue, Wash. Merril Press, 2001. Recounts the arguments and ruling in a federal district court that for the first time affirmed that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms. (Note that an appeals court subsequently found against the defendant but left the Second Amendment interpretation intact.)... 

Kruschke, Earl R. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms A Continuing American Dilemma. Springfield, 111. Thomas, 1985. Explores the legal history of firearms law and cases in the United States. 

---