Talk:Right to keep and bear arms

The Right to Bear Arms is broad global topic beyond the United States of America. Simply redirecting this page to the Second Amendment of the United States is inaccurate. There are significant point of view conflicts, the largest being that there is a disagreement whether the Second Amendment creates a right to bear arms, or whether the Second Amendment only preserves a right to bear arms found elsewhere. Secondly, the World right to bear arms is a different POV that USA right to bear arms. In any case, simply redirecting this web page to the Second Amendment of the United States is decidedly a non-neutral point of view. BruceHallman 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does the UDHR mention arms? Zetetic Apparatchik 13:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that UDHR mentions arms, but rather Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.. I understand that some argue that right to 'security of person' includes the right of (armed) self defense, and that the right to 'liberty' includes the right of recreation, such as the right to recreational uses of arms, etc.. BruceHallman 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In which case this article seems to actually be equating the rights to security to the right to bear arms. Which seems very debateable and POV. Am I reading it right? Zetetic Apparatchik 00:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though that POV is widespread. I think that historically, security with personal arms, dating back to daggers and swords as protection for travelers, this POV has commonly existed. I would welcome your editing to describe the various POV's about this, including the dabate, and to bring more neutrality to the POV. BruceHallman 17:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

systemic bias

The various rights to bear arms are obviously a global issue, and the United States represents only a small portion of the global interests, but this article devotes half or more of the content to the United States. Hopefully, Wikipedia editors can also contribute to expanding the article to include the right to bear arms in regions of the world outside the United States, and outside juridictions with English judicial origin. BruceHallman 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, it isn't much of an issue outside the USA. There is a debate in the UK about how far one can go in defending one's property but it isn't couched in these terms. The USA is a special case since the "right to bear arms" is mentioned in the constitution and there is an ongoing debate about how this is to be interpreted in today's circumstances. Exile 09:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, certainly to a very large extent. And, I see, there is an ongoing R2BA debate in Australia too. BruceHallman 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• waves his bear arms around* Yay for the 2nd amendment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.93.28.193 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

See the section "English/British history and the heritage of common law" Circusandmagicfan 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Out of date references

On 10/28/1999, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe discussed the update to his text American Constitutional Law in the New York Times: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1999Militias.pdf He notes, "The people's 'right' to be armed cannot be trumped by the [Second] Amendment's preamble."

In "Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals" by Tony Mauro, USA Today 8/27/99, Tribe discussed an article authored by Amar (quoted in 1992 in the extant Wikipedia entry) and him saying, "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

In commenting on the reaction to his corrected position, he observed, "I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, 'How could you?' [...] But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits."

The present article ignores this new reality, preferring an out-dated viewpoint. Bob Alfson 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the present article? It appears, to my eye at least, to adequately accommodate and represent the various points of view, including Mr. Tribe's. BruceHallman 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Apropos of references, the article cites a "study" from an entity called the Potowmack Institute concluding "that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the 'bear arms' expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service." A quick review of the study finds it to be, in my view, based largely on circular reasoning. Is the Potowmack Institute a reliable source? I can't find any references to it on Google Books or Google Scholar, and the site looks kind of like a one-man operation, which raises verifiability and OR concerns. This is the type of study that should have some kind of peer review or at least the name of a reputable scholar behind it. PubliusFL 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

List of gun uses

This list of "gun uses" is embarrassing to the article. You could add "use them as paperweights" if you want to. It definitely doesn't belong in this article. Sparsefarce 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

English/British history and the heritage of common law

There seems to be some dispute about the position of English common law in terms of whether it is a source of a right or a responsibility to bear arms.

I'm British and my concern is that British history and law is being misrepresented in order to fit the needs of certain positions that are mostly or entirely to do with the firearms debate in America. I am not unsympathetic to some of the arguments for responsible gun ownership for certain purposes (I have shot rifles and pistols competitively). However, in addition to the fact that having Americans lecture us about English law is guaranteed to annoy many Brits, it would be better if the debate on firearms were conducted on better and more contemporary foundations.

For what it's worth, here are my problems with what's been written in Wikipedia. Whilst I do not dispute there have been a number of pieces of law at various times that obliged Englishmen to keep weapons or practice their use, I do dispute that those requirements have remained in law. Furthermore there is a debate to be had about when they ceased to be part of English law.

Some contributors here seem to place a great deal of emphasis on certain medeival statutes, such as the much quoted Assize of Arms of 1181 and the Statute of Winchester of 1285. The article text seems to suggest these statutes created responsibilities that formed a part of common law into the modern era. I think there are two problems with that: Firstly in the interpretation of the original statutes and, secondly, in the picture that has been presented of common law.

First the statutes. The Assize of Arms of 1181 was specifically an attempt to ensure that the monarch could assemble an army in times of conflict. It was certainly not about providing for citizens to defend themselves against any excesses of the state and it is doubtful whether the king had citizens' self-defence in mind at all when he instituted the measure. The assize was part of a series of military measures during Henry II's reign (including the Cartae Baronum of 1166) and it is recognised by British Army historians as one of the roots of the concept of a high quality army with properly maintained weapons [1]. In considering the 1285 Statue of Winchester it should be borne in mind that this dealt with the appointment of an early form of police; basically lords of the manor were to draft local men to serve as constables and those men had to be equipped and able to do the job. In other words it was about state control rather than limiting state powers.

Next English history and common law. A central feature of the common law system in England (and subsequently the United Kingdom) is the way it provides for law to be interpreted in accordance with custom. Customs change with time and so, to an extent, law becomes interpreted in keeping with the times. Of course it is more complex than that because the role of case law means that interpretation includes an element of history while, at the same time, fresh statutes can overrule historic precedent. Even if the statutes in question remained a theoretical part of English law centuries after they were passed, any interpretation of their standing would have to take into account the times and circumstances.

Whilst it is true the army in England was assembled on militia lines for several centuries after the assize of 1181, it has to be recognised that there was a time when this declined and was replaced by the modern concept of a state with a standing army. (By coincidence this was not long after the "Peace of Westphalia" in 1648, which is seen as the beginning of the modern system of states). Charles II issued the Royal Warrant that created the genesis of what would become the British Army in 1661. I agree that the Bill of Rights of 1689 placed restrictions on the military power of the monarch. I also agree it contains the oft quoted passage that "the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law." However, as I wrote in the article, the words "as allowed by Law" indicate this was always a qualified rather than a universal right. The bottom line is that in the period between 1661 and the beginning of the American War of Independence the custom or tradition of militias and armed citizenship in Britain was declining and being replaced by the modern concept of a state with professional forces that provide for the security of its citizens.

This is obviously a point at which there is a divergence between American and British views. In America the settlers were very much a group of citizens fighting against a state and it is understandable that they felt the need for personal weapons to protect against state aggression. And as settlers in an undeveloped land they already had an established need for weapons for self defence and hunting. These factors must surely have been in the minds of the founding fathers when they were drafting the US constitution. When they drew on elements of English common law they did so selectively based upon what they perceived as the needs of the nation they were founding. I'm not arguing that they were wrong - they did what was right at the time. What I am arguing is that the American view, which traces some of its roots back to those early post-independence years, is not a complete or representative picture of English law.

By the time of US independence the concept of Englishmen having a "responsibility" to keep arms was obsolete. The question of the right of citizens to keep arms is another matter. That is something which continued to evolve, in culture and in law, right up to the 20th century. I guess you could argue that the matter was only finally settled in 1920 with the first Firearms Act, which placed the right to bear arms very clearly in the domain of statute law. However any right to keep or use weapons had ceased to be an unqualified right centuries beforehand. It was always a right that was subject to regulation and much of its early provision was rooted in the desire of national leaders to be able to call upon armed citizens to serve the state.

Circusandmagicfan 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Excellent discussion. Many good points. However, upon your statement that, "By the time of US independence the concept of Englishmen having a "responsibility" to keep arms was obsolete" this depends in large part on which Englishmen are being discussed. For Englishmen living in the colonies of America just prior to the Revolution, it was a responsibility for each able-bodied man upon reaching the age of majority to maintain a musket, and a specified amount of powder and lead ball. This was not merely a permissive condition, but was a statutory requirement and responsibility in the colonies. Whether this was a remnant from the earlier French & Indian War, or due to the wilderness to the western edge of the colonies being inhabited by natives who were an ever-present threat, the statutory responsibility was what stood in the colonies for Englishmen. It was also a matter of right in England that Englishmen there could still then own and use weapons, although I think your points are well-stated that the responsibility to maintain them as a responsibility there had largely ceased to exist much earlier. In writing for an encyclopedia, it is always a balancing act to contain adequate detail without including much too much detail in an article. Your comments are well stated, and point to the need to be ever vigilent in making sure the content of articles such as this one represents a world view, while still being factually accurate. Parliamentary supremacy, of course, permitted common law in England, and in many other English-law derived jurisdictions to evolve as you state, whereas the constitution in the United States largely froze the rights of Englishmen at the time of the Revolution in a suspended state, with no permitted future infractions of common law rights by Congress, barring future constitutional amendments of course. A common heritage, but different paths subsequent to the Revolution, have largely led to where we are today. Yaf 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points on both sides. The American colonists certainly considered themselves to be standing up for their rights as Englishmen. But the article could use a more nuanced description of the transition from responsibility to right to, well, nothing, in England proper. PubliusFL 23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Circusandmagicfan makes an important point in stressing the difference in arms ownership as an obligation and as a right. Not the least, the ownership usually came with specific duties such as regular drills or mandatory training. The concept of a right not coming with any duties other than those of every other citizen is, as far as I can see it, fairly modern, because it requires a standing security force as a dependable source of security, since the comparatively untrained civilians not required to take part in regular drills lacks effectiveness especially against external threats. So, when talking about civilian ownership of arms in pre-US-independence history, we're not really talking about issues of rights at all, but of duties, a point that unfortunately is often muddled. --84.61.118.44 15:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is important but I think 84.61.118.44 might be misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I have said. These early instances of rights in English law did indeed come about in conjunction with duties imposed by national leaders, who sought to ensure they could quickly turn citizens into an army when required. However I am not arguing that there is some sort of fundamental underlying duty on everyone to have arms. Those obligations declined as countries became more developed entities with professional armed forces. By the time of the American Civil War there was no general duty on Englishmen to have arms. I argue that what happened was that the founding fathers asserted a right to bear arms when they created the United States. They did that because of their experiences as part of an armed independence movement (which is understandable and reasonable) and additionally because they were in a frontier territory where firearms were a common part of the survival kit. My message to Americans is feel free to develop your arguments for a right to arms from that point but do not try to project that back onto English history because the situation in England was a different matter. It is true that people were legally able to carry personal arms in England at the time and that some people did so for personal protection purposes but the culture was somewhat different.

Circusandmagicfan 16:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

I'd like to know what Circusfan thinks about the right/obligation debate vis a vis the existence of the English longbow/bodkin arrowhead. What I mean is that the English longbow was part of a very simple weapon system that was relatively easy to make, required only skills which a great many people already had, and yet had an enormous amount of power in that it could penetrate any personal armor of the day. What I'm getting at is, do you think there was a certain amount of "mission creep" that this weapon brought about? That is, did the power and ease of access to this weapon help to change the responsibility to be armed into the right to be armed? Johnny Wishbone 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

A short while ago I reverted the introduction (mostly re-introduction) of some information I felt to be redundant and/or OR. The first part discussed how the word "arms" can include swords, knives etc. as well as firearms. This point was already included later in the article. The second sentence discusses "bearing arms" as being synonymous with military service. This is also redundant with (sourced) information later in the article (also redundant with the Potowmack reference discussed below). Next was a list of "types of rights to bear arms." This list appeared to me to be a recreation of the list of gun uses which was previously in the article, was objected to on the talk page above, and previously removed from the article. It is unsourced and appears to me to be original research. Finally, there was a reference to a study by the "Potowmack Institute." I expressed concerns about the reliability of this source on this talk page a couple of months ago. When no one defended the study I replaced it with a much more scholarly source making the same point (Uviller & Merkel). PubliusFL 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The book The Militia and the Right to Arms seems to make the mistake to talk of 'Arms' as opposed to expression 'Bear Arms'. This is a common POV distortion of the predominate colonial historical meaning of 'Bear Arms'. Take a look at the usage of the expression 'Bear Arms' in the Declaration of Independence; military service on a ship, an example of the colonial meaning of the expression. The Potowmack Institute citation includes exhaustive referencing, and your concerns about reliability is unfounded and appear based upon your POV. This listing of types of rights is necessary due to the global nature of this article which should not be USA centric. That list of types is not original research and can be easily sourced. BruceHallman 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

PubliusFL wrote: "I expressed concerns about the reliability of this source on this talk page a couple of months ago." Could you please point to the diff showing this, thanks. BruceHallman 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: [2] - it's above in the "out of date references" section, right below your comment from 6 Dec 06. My objection to the Potowmack Institute is based on lack of reference to the Potowmack Institute in any reputable publication, not on my POV. Uviller and Merkel do discuss the expression "bear arms" rather than just the term "arms," and make essentially the same point as the Potowmack Institute. See the following, for example, at pages 26-27: "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 proceeduings 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." I'm not trying to censor the point - I actually think this ought to be fleshed out more in the article. I just think a book by a respected law professor, published by a major university press, is a better source for the point than a web page by an organization of dubious reputation and reliability. PubliusFL 17:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that clears it up for me, I appreciate your response. Could you address my concern about the revert of the 'types of rights' section, such information seems relevant to serve the global scope of the article. BruceHallman 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, PubliusFL, please explain your 'redundant' criticism about reverted items in the opening paragraph. As the intent of the opening paragraph is to 'frame' and to summarize the main points in the following article, literally everything should be redundant in the opening paragraph. Choosing which points are main points often requires a delicate balance of POV, and one side's idea of what is a main point often does not match the other sides idea. For instance, I view that the historical 'military service' definition of 'bear arms' is an extremely important main point and you do not. Redundancy has little to do with it, the question is: what rises to the significance of 'main point'? And, the neutrality balance. BruceHallman 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What "bear arms" does NOT (as far as we know) mean

Just wondering if something should be put in. While the term is fairly clear, "bear arms" could have the literal sense too. In one Family Guy non sequitur, the writers of the Constitution talk about whether the term "bear arms" is clear enough, which one replies that it's perfectly clear and points to a pair of bear (the animal) arms on a plaque above the fireplace. While I know this is a serious and "official" article, and the previous example is just for comedy, but I think it would have some relevance in the "Definition of bear arms" section. Just a thought. Eridani 23:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)