I don’t mean that literally. What I’m curious to know is if any other countries besides the US have something similar to a constitutional provision that protects a right to keep and bear arms.
Said more bluntly, do any other countries include “gun rights” as part of their constitution (charter of rights and freedoms)?
Australia has very few civil rights in its Constitution (there’s no explicit right of freedom of speech, for example), and guns are not mentioned at all there. The federal government has put strict regulations on guns – probably using its interstate commerce power.
Googling turned up this wiki page
Gun Rights
Two countries that specifically mention guns (Mexico and Switzerland) also state that they are kept at home and register.
BTW, not countries, but I believe either 43 or 44 US States have their own version of the 2nd in their constitutions.
This essentially means that the right to bear arms shall not be removed, but the government can restrict things. I believe they restrict military calibers, so civilians cannot use things like .223. At least in other places, this just means that civilians use nonmilitary calibers like the ballistically similar .222.
In Switzerland, all veterans are in the reserve (in practice, the majority of the male population). They are given their service rifle, converted to semi-auto, and must keep it at home. For current soldiers I believe this is the SIG 550. For private ownership, things are more restricted than the US in some ways, and less restricted in other ways. Ultimately, it’s pretty similar except for the registration requirement.
ETA: I’m not sure what “kept at home” means. Gun ranges are pretty popular in Switzerland, so it’s not like they can’t use them. I am pretty sure they have no legal CCW.
I guess it’s been removed by now, but there was a provision in the English Bill of Rights that stated that one had the right to keep and bear arms if he were a Protestant.
Rob
What is the common practice in Switzerland doesn’t address the OP’s question, though. The Swiss Constitution doesn’t mention anywhere that the right to own a weapon is a fundamental right. (Note: the Swiss constitution is much more detailed than the US constitution). The section on Fundamental Rights in the Swiss constitution has these chapters:
Art. 7 Human dignity
Art. 8 Equality before the law
Art. 9 Protection against arbitrary conduct and principle of good faith
Art. 10 Right to life and to personal freedom
Art. 11 Protection of children and young people
Art. 12 Right to assistance when in need
Art. 13 Right to privacy
Art. 14 Right to marry and to have a family
Art. 15 Freedom of religion and conscience
Art. 16 Freedom of expression and of information
Art. 17 Freedom of the media
Art. 18 Freedom to use any language
Art. 19 Right to primary school education
Art. 20 Academic freedom
Art. 21 Freedom of artistic expression
Art. 22 Freedom of assembly
Art. 23 Freedom of association
Art. 24 Freedom of domicile
Art. 25 Protection against expulsion, extradition and deportation
Art. 26 Guarantee of ownership
Art. 27 Economic freedom
Art. 28 Right to form professional associations
Art. 29 General procedural guarantees
Art. 29a Guarantee of access to the courts
Art. 30 Judicial proceedings
Art. 31 Deprivation of liberty
Art. 32 Criminal proceedings
Art. 33 Right of petition
Art. 34 Political rights
Art. 35 Upholding of fundamental rights
Art. 36 Restrictions on fundamental rights
The only mention I could find of weapons is this:
Art. 107 Weapons and war material
1 The Confederation shall legislate against misuse of weapons and their accessories and ammunition.
2 It shall legislate on the manufacture, procurement and sale of war material as well as the import, export and transit of such material.
P.S. I’m not an expert on the subject, but as far as I know, the USA is the only country that states in its constitution that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.
England/Britain is a noteworthy example because at one point the right of citizens to keep and bear arms was cherished there, in large part because it was not a hypothetical matter but the result of several revolutions/ coup d’état’s/ dynasty changes. However, as the Wikipedia links says:
.
P.P.S. I meant to post this in my previous post, but I c&ped incorrectly.
I’m not an expert on the subject, but as far as I know, the USA is the only country that states in its constitution that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right. Though I guess the constitution of Mexico fits that category - they don’t use the words “inalienable right”, but then the clause saying the citizens have the right to have guns at home is right there in the section describing fundamental rights: see Article 10. On the other hand, Article 10 also says “Only arms sanctioned by the Army may be owned, and federal law will state the manner in which they can be used” (in the translation I see at Wikipedia) so I’ll leave it to the hair-splitters to determine if this is really equivalent to the US Constitution’s second amendment.
I dunno, rifles aren’t that hard to own legally in the UK, and shotguns are even easier. A handgun, well that is really difficult, as far as I know. It’s a matter of degree. shrug
One last thing about Article 10 in the Mexican Consitution:
here is the text in Spanish ( http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/1.pdf - PDF file), from a link at Wikipedia.
Thread from last year on topic: Do any other countries have the right to bear arms in their constitution?
Consensus seemed to be that Mexico came closest, but even then, the right appeared to be heavily qualified.
In most country’s the “right” is moot. You have it or don’t. For instance, in India there are severe restrictions on ownership, while across the border in Pakistan, hardly any.
In each case it was through social structures that the situation developed, n ot through fundamental rights.
The US debate and the second amendment seems…rather silly. Private firearm ownership is widespread in the US and would outlast the 2nd Amendment.
Both the English Bill of Rights and the Mexican Constitition confine themselves to a (limited) statemetn of a right to keep arms, i.e. to possess them. The Bill of Rights says nothing about the right to bear arms, i.e. to carry them, to use them, while the Mexican Constution explicitly says that federal law is to govern the bearing of arms - meaning, it seems to me, that federal law can substantially restrict not only the kind of arms which people can keep in their homes, but the extent, if any, to which they may bring them out of their homes and use them.
In short, in terms of the OP, the US seems to be the only country with any kind of constitutional assertion of a right to “keep and bear” arms. Mexico recognises constitutionally a right to keep arms, but not to bear them, and the UK has a vestigial constitutional declaration of very uncertain application today recognising a limited right to keep arms, but saying nothing about bearing them.
As AK84 rightly points out, the constitutional status of gun rights doesn’t necessarily correlate with the legal climate regulating guns.
It means it’s kept in a closet in the bedroom, oiled and cleaned and along with a box of ammo. The idea is that in case of invasion, you instantly go from being in the reserve and serving one month per year to being on active duty and part of the nearest unit (not of the one where you usually serve). At least as per my Swiss coworkers, we’ve had at least one Swiss poster but there’s a dearth of them.
AFAIK, it means it must indeed stay at home. They don’t have the right to open the ammunition containers, for instance.
No such constitutionnal provision in France, by the way.
And possession of weapons is severely restricted. Apart from some excedeelingly rare cases (people extremely threatened), no firearm can be carried (except hunting rifles, of course). And handguns at home are now allowed only for people who use them regularly as a sport practice (certificates required) and they must be kept in a safe at home.