Analyzing The 2nd Amendment

The first in a series of articles on the importance of the upcoming general election

Does the Second Amendment guarantee a right to states rather than an individual right to choose to own firearms? One clue to the answer is looking at who supports each position. The few law-review articles supporting the states'-right view all come from advocates, most of them employed by or associated with anti-gun groups.

The Verdict of Scholarship Yet, intellectual honesty compels many far more important scholars to accept the standard model of the Amendment as an individual's right despite personal anti-gun feelings. Famed constitutional lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who defended O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bulow, is a former ACLU national board member who admits he "hates" guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed. Yet, says Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Another former ACLU national board member, Duke Law School's William Van Alstyne, who is among the premier constitutional scholars of modern times, contemptuously dismisses the states'-right view. "If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." He emphasizes that to take civil liberties seriously requires respecting the Second Amendment no less than freedom of speech and religion and the other rights in the First Amendment. [Van Alstyne, "The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms," 43 Duke Law Journal 1236 (1994).]

Another major figure in modern constitutional law is Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe who is anti-gun and a liberal. Earlier versions of his famous text endorsed the states'-right view, but, having examined the historical evidence for himself, he now reluctantly admits the Amendment guarantees "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes." [Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, pp. 901-902 (2000)].

RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE Anti-gun writers cite my article (83 Michigan Law Review, pp. 204-273) as the definitive standard-model treatment. Yet, remarkably, these anti-gun writers give only that one initial mention. If they have answers to the 50 pages of evidence I offer for the standard model, they neglect to offer them. So I shall limit myself to just two examples of my unrefuted evidence.

Written by James Madison, the Bill of Rights was enacted as a single document. Whenever it says "right of the people," it does so to describe individual rights. To ignore this point you must think that in the First Amendment Madison used "right of the people" to describe an individual right. But then, 16 words later, he used it in the Second Amendment meaning a state's right. But then, 46 words later, the Fourth Amendment says "right of the people" meaning an individual right again. And then "right of the people" was used in the Ninth Amendment to mean--guess what--a right of the people.

In fact, throughout the Bill of Rights and the Constitution the word "right" is always used to refer to something individuals have and never used to refer to powers possessed by government. Such powers are always called "power" or "authority."

THE PURPOSE OF THE MILITIA Anti-gun advocates imply from the Amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia" that government can regulate gun ownership. But that is totally outside the 18th century usage of "well regulated," which means "well trained" and "operating properly." Likewise, anti-gun advocates think the mention of militia show the right to arms applies only to states arming their militias. But in the 18th century "militia" did not mean "army" or "soldiers." The militia was a system of laws under which every man and every household was to have guns (unorganized militia), while most men of military age were required to appear with their guns when called out for drill or war (organized militia). The arms of the militia were the personally owned arms of its members.

It is somewhat misleading, however, to see the Second Amendment as a right to have arms for collective defense against tyranny or foreign enemies. The Amendment's central theme was what our Founding Fathers saw as the basic human right to possess arms for individual self-defense. But the Founders did not misconstrue that, as we so often do, as just a right to defense against nonpolitical criminals. The Founders believed individuals needed to be armed for political self-defense (e.g., Jews resisting the Gestapo) and that, in the ultimate extreme, people must join together to overthrow tyranny. (Note that the literal meaning of the term "revolution" was an uprising seeking to bring government back to its original free form, not to produce some new form.) [Kates, "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection," 9 Constitutional Commentary 87 (1992).]

WHAT LAWS DOES THE AMENDMENT PRECLUDE? The NRA's experts like Prof. Steve Halbrook believe the Amendment does more than I feel it does. And another expert, Prof. Nelson Lund, thinks neither Halbrook nor I interpret the Amendment broadly enough. We all agree, however, that the Amendment guarantees every responsible law-abiding adult freedom of choice regarding guns.

So assault-weapon bans are unconstitutional. "Assault weapons" are just semiautomatic rifles differing only in that they are down-powered from those of the WWII era. Banning them infringes on the freedom of law-abiding, responsible adults to choose which firearms they wish to have. Magazine limitations are invalid for the same reason.

So-called Saturday Night Special bans are valid only insofar as a particular model of firearm is provably unreliable or dangerous to use in the manner it is reasonably foreseeable to be used. The reasons for most SNS bans--that the guns are small, light and/or inexpensive--are invalid under the Second Amendment. Nor can states push gun prices to astronomical levels by requiring that guns incorporate dubious or unnecessary safety features.

LIMITS ON THE AMENDMENT The Amendment covers only small arms. Neither RPGs, cannons, grenades nor the other super-destructive devices of modern war are covered.

Guns may be banned to juveniles, convicted felons, aliens and the insane, all of whom have been excluded from the right to arms in free societies dating back to ancient Greece. (Juveniles have the right to use firearms under parental supervision.)

Though Professors Lund and Halbrook disagree, I think gun registration and license requirements to own are valid. What is invalid is licensing as traditionally practiced in New York. For licensing to be valid, licenses must be granted to all law-abiding, responsible applicants and within some very short period like 72 hours. If New York cannot manage to accomplish this then it cannot constitutionally require a license to own a firearm.

The right to bear arms includes a right to carry them but not concealed. On the other hand, if a license is required for concealed carry, equal standards must be applied. If retired cops routinely get licenses, so must everyone else who may be in danger from their connection with the justice system. And if the wealthy and influential routinely get licenses, so must the entire responsible, law-abiding adult populace.

VINDICATING THE RIGHT TODAY The Supreme Court has briefly referred to the Amendment in almost 40 different opinions, all showing that it guarantees an individual right to arms. But the court has never provided a full and lengthy exposition of the Amendment. In fact, several lengthy and considered opinions would be required to illuminate the Amendment's various aspects.

To any judge willing to follow the law, it must be clear that the Amendment guarantees the freedom of all responsible, law-abiding adults to choose to possess firearms for personal and family defense. We must depend on the president to appoint such judges and the Senate to confirm them.

Several vacancies on the U.S. Supreme court are likely during the next presidential term. Many appointments are also expected on lower federal and appellate courts. The president and members of the senate who are elected in November will play a major role in the rights of gun owners for many years.

""No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.""

The next clause goes on to clarify:

"No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

Concerning concealed carry, it has always been my contention that the "but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons" clause was another of stating the obvious, that the state does not have the power to permit -- or not permit -- the carrying of concealed weapons, as that would be assuming powers it did not have. It would be passing a law that would abridge the right of a Citizen to keep and bear arms, concealed or otherwise. An abridgement, which it knew it couldn't do. If the state can grant Citizens the right to carry concealed, it can also take away the right to carry concealed. So it excused itself from having to make the decision by adding that clause.

The final clause concerning municipalities or counties also prevents those political entities from restricting carry, concealed or otherwise. That's the only way I can make sense out of the entire Article II, Section 6.

If there is any obfuscation or confusion with the Article, it must lie at the feet of the writers who may have had a rascist bent and wanted the Article to be subject to interpretation either way, according to what 'incident' presented itself at any given time.

"There are many weapons that are not suitable for the purposes stated in your state constitution. Just be thankful you don't live in Illinois.

I lived in Illinois many years and never had a problem. The laws are written for the lawless. I was not a lawless person, nor am I today.

Who is to judge what kind of weapons are suitable for my purpose? Me and me alone. For self-defense, I will allow myself the necessity to use a weapon superior to any that might be used against me. After all, that's what self-defense is all about. It's not about battling for my life on an equal playing field. It's about surviving in the face of peril and the odds are going to be in my favor.

Do you see the logic and necessity for that?

"So, do these federal statutes violate the second amendment? Who knows?"

So what's your opinion? Is a rose still a rose if called by any other name?

""the people are nuts to allow even the state to dictate the terms of engagement where life and liberties are at stake""

"I disagree. After all, this is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind."

Doubt it very much. Otherwise we would have not objected to the redcoats trying to confiscate our powder. Why would they turn right around after winning the right to keep their powder and put it back under control of another government? Doesn't make sense. The Founders, more than anyone, knew governments of any kind had a built-in tendency to lean towards tyranny in time. That's another reason they made mention of it and took precautions to reserve for the people the right to change government.

"Watch how many states rush to pass their own AWB to fill the gap. You say it's the big bad federal government banning guns via the AWB? You ain't seen nothing yet."

Not looking forward to it.

I know what I am talking about.
I have oral history handed down to me from my forefathers generations ago.
I present my case by family history and historical precedent for the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

(7 of my family fought on Breed's Hill (Bunker Hill)
My family has had weapons and firearms since 1620, including muskets, blunderbusses, rifled muskets, rifles, civil war rifles, rifles brought home from WWI, WWII, KOREA and Vietnam, including Enfields, British sniper rifles, M-1 carbines, German lugers, and AK47's right off the plane from San Francisco from Saigon in 1975. My family has fought in the New England Indian Wars, Queen Ann's War, Fort St. Frederic (Fort Crown Point), Fort Ticonderoga, French and Indian War, Battle of Bloody Pond, Stark’s Rangers, Whitcomb’s Rangers, Green Mountain Boys, Bunker Hill, Battle of Bennington, Saratoga II, Connecticut British raid, War of 1812 Battle of Plattsburg, Civil War at Gettysburg- New York 5th Cavalry (Hammond's 5th New York Troopers charging Jeb Stuart's Confederate Cavalry) (using our own Morgan chargers -we still breed them), including:

* 2nd NY Cavalry
* 5th NY Cavalry
* 2nd NY Infantry
* 9th NY Infantry
* 13th NY Infantry
* 34th NY Infantry
* 65th NY Infantry
* 76th NY Infantry
* 83rd NY Infantry
* 96th NY Infantry
* 118th NY Infantry
* 13th NY Artillery
* 16th NY Artillery
* 23rd NY Artillery
* 62nd NY Zouaves
* 1st VT Cavalry
* 11th VT Infantry
* 14th VT Infantry
* 50th OH Infantry
* 20th WI Infantry\
then
* 12th US Infantry, WW1, WWII North Africa Tunisia Theatre, and Germany, Korea MIA's, Grenada, Vietnam Afghanistan and Iraq.

Since 1620, my family knows possession of arms was antecedent to the U.S. constitution; everyone of my family had arms under Dutch, British and French rule;

Even my maternal relatives, Mohawks, have borne arms on and off the reservation guaranteed by British treaty of 1763 and numerous U.S, Govt treaties unbroken to this very day.

If U.S. govt guarantees my cousins on the reservation to bear arms FOREVER, so much the more are we all Americans from our foundation exercising that right from 1620 in New England and New York and even earlier (1607, and even earlier in the Northern French colonies in New England and New York) in the other colonies before the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is a CONFIRMATION and AFFIRMATION of pre-existing conditions, practices and rights of the people dating back to 1066 Magna Carta and brought to our shores by my ancestors from England. (In 1051, in England, Edward the Confessor, raised an army of his own and, since he was king and had the power of mobilizing the fyrd, or NATIONAL MILITIA; most of the other English nobles, who were jealous of Godwin's power, sided with Edward.)

The U.S. Constitution is not a proposal, but an affirmation, a WITNESS to practices back to our ancestors landing here.

The 13 Colonies' Charters and Constitutions mostly pre-dated the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Constitution drew upon them for the Bill of Rights.

The rights against the English King obtained in 1066 were re-affirmed by rightful LEGAL force of arms by the PEOPLE in 1775 at Concord on the Green and postulated as fact and rights affirmed by our founding Fathers in tHe U.S. Constitution.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/magna_carta/)

COMMON LAW DERIVED FROM MAGNA CARTA:

New Jersey Constitution, 1776

And whereas, in the present deplorable situation of these
COLONIES, exposed to the fury of a cruel and relentless enemy,
some form of government is absolutely necessary, not only for the
preservation of good order, but also the more effectually TO UNITE THE PEOPLE,
and enable them to exert THEIR WHOLE FORCE in their
own necessary defence

XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of
the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony,
shall still remain in force…
In PROVINCIAL CONGRESS, New Jersey,
Burlington, July 2, 1776.

By order of Congress.
SAMUEL TUCKER, Pres.
William Paterson, Secretary.

http://www.state.nj.us/njfacts/njdoc10a.htm

Massachusetts Charter of 1629:
And, further our Will and Pleasure is, and Wee doe hereby for Us, our Heires and Successors, ordeyne and declare, and graunte to the saide Governor and Company and their Successors, That all and every the Subjects of Us, our Heires or Successors, which shall goe to and inhabite within the saide Landes and Premisses hereby mentioned to be graunted, and every of their Children which shall happen to be borne there, or on the Seas in goeing thither, or retorning from thence, shall have and enjoy ALL LIBERTIES and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any of the Domynions of Us, our Heires or Successors, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if they and everie of them were borne within the Realme of England.
(http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/massbay.html)

Mass constitution 1780

Article XVII. The people have a RIGHT TO KEEP AND TO BEAR ARMS for the common defence.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm

Rhode Island Charter

And THAT THEY MAY BEE IN THE BETTER CAPACITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, IN THEIRE JUST RIGHTS AND LIBERTYES against all the enemies of the Christian ffaith, and others, in all respects, wee have further thought fit, and at the humble petition of the persons aforesayd are gratiously pleased to declare, That they shall have and enjoye the benefist of our late act of indempnity and ffree pardon, as the rest of our subjects in other our dominions and territoryes have; and to create and make them a bodye politique or corporate, with the powers and priviledges hereinafter mentioned.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ri04.htm

Rhode Island Constitution 1986

Sec. 22. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed.
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/r-island.txt

Connecticut Constitution

Sec. 15. Every citizen has a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in defense of himself and the state.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/connecti.txt

Maine Constitution 1993

Article 1
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS and this right shall never be questioned.
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/const/

New Hampshire Constitution

ESTABLISHED OCTOBER 31, 1783 TO TAKE EFFECT JUNE 2, 1784 AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED AND IN FORCE DECEMBER 1990

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.]. All persons have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
December l, 1982

http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/billofrights.html

Vermont Constitution 1777

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS for the defence
of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time
of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;
and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS cannot be infringed."

New York State Civil Rights Law Article 2, Section 4

Pennsylvania Constitution

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS in defense of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned.
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html

Virginia Constitution 1776

SEC. 13. That a well-regulated MILITIA, composed of THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE,
trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a
free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided,
as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/va-1776.htm

North Carolina Constitution 1776

XVII. That the people have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nc07.htm

North Carolina Constitution amended to 1975

Sec. 30. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting statues against that practice.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/no-carol.txt

South Carolina Constitution (as revised to 1981)

Sec. 20. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law.
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/s-carol.txt

Georgia Constitution Feb. 5, 1777

ART. XXXV. Every county in this State that has, or hereafter may have, two hundred and fifty men, and upwards, LIABLE TO BEAR ARMS, shall be formed into a battalion; and when they become too numerous for one battalion, they shall be formed into more, by bill of the legislature;
and those counties that have a less number than two hundred and fifty shall be formed into independent companies.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ga02.htm

Florida Constitution of 1838:
Section 21. That the free white men of this State shall have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, for their common defense.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/crc/conhist/1838con.html

==CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

ADOPTED IN CONVENTION AT NASHVILLE,

FEBRUARY 23, 1870

Sec. 26. Right to bear arms--Regulations.--
That the citizens of this State have a RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS for their common defense; but the Legislature
shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms
with a view to prevent crime.

http://www.divorcetn.com/d18.htm

Kentucky Constitution (as amended to 1980)

Seventh: The RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.
http://www.harbornet.com/rights/kentucky.txt

Louisiana Constitution

Sec. 11. The RIGHT OF EACH CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

...
www.harbornet.com/rights/louisana.txt

Alambama constitution 1901

SECTION 26

Right to bear arms.

That every citizen has a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in defense of himself and the state.
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245557.htm

Missouri Constitution
Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

August 28, 2003

Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

Section 23. That the RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/a01023.htm

ARKANSAS DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

(Article II of the 1874 Constitution of Arkansas)
As amended to 1975

Sec. 5. The citizens of this state shall have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS for their common defense.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/arkansas.txt

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATE OF TEXAS
(as amended to Aug. 1969)

Sec. 23. Every citizen shall have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power: by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/texas.txt

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Adopted in Convention at Guthrie, July 16, 1907.
Ratified Sept. 17, 1907. In force Nov. 16, 1907.
With Amendments to January 1,1975

ARTICLE II

BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 26. The RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS in defence of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, where thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/oklahoma.txt

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
(As amended to 1972)

Sec. 6. Every person has a RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS for the defense of himself and the state.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/michigan.txt

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/illinois.txt

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
(as amended to 1970)
Sec. 22. Subject only to the police power, the RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed.

THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATE OF OHIO
(as amended to 1974)

Sec. 4. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS for their defence and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1172715%2C1

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
(as amended to 1972)

Sec. 32. The people shall have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, for the defense of themselves and the State.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/indiana.txt

WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I.
Article I, §25

Article I, §25
Right to keep and bear arms. Section 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]

http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=42804035
==

CONSTITUTION
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
(as amended to 1975)

BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 24. The RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/s-dakota.txt

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
(Adopted Nov. 1, A.D.,1890)

BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 12. The RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

Arizona Constitution

Section 26. The RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO BEAR ARMS in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.tufte.net/jerod/law/AZ-Constitution.html

CONSTITUTION
of the
STATE OF OREGON

Bill of Rights

Sec. 27. THE PEOPLE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power [.]

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/oregon.txt

Washington Constitution

ARTICLE I

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO BEAR ARMS in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/other/WA_CONSTITUTION.htm

Idaho Constitution

Sec. 11. THE PEOPLE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS for their security and defense; but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/idaho.txt
Utah Constitution

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS for their security and defense, but the Legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law.

http://www.archives.state.ut.us/exhibits/Statehood/1896text.htm
=====

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Article. 1. Declaration of Rights.

Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

1. EVERY CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

Hawaii Constitution

ARTICLE I

BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 15. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/hawaii.txt

Alaska Constitution

Sec. 19 A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of
a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
shall not be infringed.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/alaska.txt

Delaware Constitution

DELAWARE BILL OF RIGHTS

(Article I of the 1897 Constitution of Delaware)
Sec. 20. A PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS for the defense
of self,family, home and state, and for hunting and
recreational use.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/delaware.txt
-

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.