Are there other countries where there is an explicit right to bear arms laid out in their constitution?
I asked that question in a thread awhile ago. I think the answer was Mexico. I’ll see if I can find it.
Very informative and thought-provoking little thread, there. Thanks for the link.
It underscores how the words used in gun laws, their “location” (in a national constitution, in provincial laws, in regulatory policies, etc.), and their interpretation all adjust to fit the ethos of the culture vis a vis that country’s historical and current situation WRT guns and how they are used. The fact that many Anericans are obsessed with the Second Amendment says much more about undercurrents in segments of American society than it does about the sanctity of certain words written on a certain piece of paper.
Ah, perfect. Just what I was looking for. I even screwed up the title at first like you did. Are you me?
Note that the Second Amendment includes a right which for example Mexico’s law about bearing arms does not: it refers to “a well regulated militia”. Bearing arms in a militia is a very different animal from “bearing arms for self-defense”.
Not as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Yeah but that’s actually a change from how it was originally written. Then again, the country was originally a union of sovereign nations.
No, it is written exactly as it was. You may feel it should be interpreted differently. But your feelings do not have the force of law.
Not quite:
The fact that many Anericans are obsessed with the certain ideas … says much … about undercurrents in segments of American society … which through debate obtained … the sanctity of certain words written on a certain piece of paper.
Peru.
Article 175
Only may the Armed Forces and the National Police possess and use weapons of war.
The weapons existing in the country, as well as those manufactured or introduced in the country become State property without any legal process or indemnification. The manufacture of weapons of war by the private industry in those cases provided for in the law is exempted of this prohibition. The law regulates the manufacture, trade, possession, and use by private parties of weapons other than those used for war.
The present day “undercurrents in segments of American society” that underpin present day gun-nuttery have little to do with the reasons why the second amendment got written into the constitution back in the 18th century.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 promised that Englishmen would have the right to keep and bear arms; but it’s been pretty much ignored by later legislation.
Not quite, as njtt mentioned. There is no widespread movement of politically powerful “soldiers can’t demand to sleep in my house” paranoid fetishists.
True, we have the ACLU – First Amendnent “fetishists”. But so many of us so obviously benefit from the First Anendnent at so many moments during the course of any given day, that it isn’t really a thing with its own particular advocacy segment.
Not quite; the provision reads:
Three limitations are built into that right:
-
It’s only available to Protestants. English Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and so on do not have that right.
-
The scope of the right varies with the individual’s condition, i.e. class. It’s not a general protection of the common man’s right to own the same arms as a lord of the realm.
-
It’s subject to limitations set out by laws. So, it’s not been ignored by subsequent legislation; new laws passed regulating arms are by definition consistent with the provision in the Bill of Rights.