How States Interpret The Right To Bear Arms

A very interesting article for those that are curious as to how each state, in respect to their state constitution, interprets the Right To Bear Arms.

Often the argument that only militias have the exclusive right to arms is bandied about but out of the 44 states that specifically mention a right to bear arms, only Massachusetts holds that it does not extend to individuals not in a militia. Even then, that has only been the case since 1976.

The article also informs how some states have changed their interpretations over time and in some case as a reaction to various events. What is exceptionally interesting is the number of states that specifically state for personal defense.

If the right to bear arms is tied to militias, why are military type weapons restricted? Think about it for a minute. If the right to bear arms is tied to a militia and a militia is to be used in the defence of the State and Country then the militia should be equipped the same as the military.

Drop that logic on the anti-gun nut of your choice and see what happens.

reply to post by JIMC5499


My favorite arguments are the ones which turn their own logic against them.

Okay, I'll concede that only the militia should be able to bear arms. Here's my militia card. Now give me my rocket launcher and SAW.

This is how I interpret it!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7dde9ac61263.jpg[/atsimg]

Sorry couldn't resist. I'm all for states rights, and their particular interpretations of guns rights, or any rights in general.

-E-

I also like Alaska and Hawaii's copy and paste of the Second Amendment. So the State can not take away gun rights from the people in that state.

I still can't wait for the SCOTUS to rule on the Chicago gun bans.

One a related note: Most state constitutions also indicate the right to abolish the government, because all political power is in the hands of the people. Yet the federal government has very specific laws against sedition.

From the Ohio Constitution

§ 02 Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges (1851)

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the general assembly.

reply to post by Ahabstar


I have stated it before and will state it again..........

PROPERTY RIGHTS

A gun is property and you have the inalienable right to own property. Encompassed in that right to own property is the right to use that property and to dispose of that property any way you see fit so long as you violate no others Rights, Life, Liberty or damage any Property.

It is that simple. We have the right to own firearms and NO STATE or FEDERAL LAW may restrict that. American Jurisprudence is a valuable set of books!!

[edit on 22-4-2010 by daddio]

reply to post by Ahabstar


Very interesting. I would be interested to read, in detail, how Massachussetts decided to interpret the right to bear arms differently than every other state. I suspect the idea was driven by the same betterment mentality that has plagued several people in the political world; they assume the government can make the nation better by eliminating things that are "bad".

As long as mankind exists, mankind's very nature will never allow a utopian society to exist.

I was reading what was said about Mississippi and it sounds pretty good but here is the hook. Mississippi cops consider it "concealing" a weapon to carry said weapon in a holster. So what looks good on paper doesn't always play so well in the real world.

If one intends to abide by their state laws as written I would advise contacting the local Sheriff and getting the skinny on how his boys react. For me personally. I own and carry a firearm and my right to do so will not be infringed - to each his or her own.