Posted on 04/03/2008 6:22:53 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Defining the Right to Keep and Bear Arms By Thomas A. Bowden FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, April 03, 2008
First, the robber hit Willie Lee Hill more than 50 times with a can of soda, knocking him unconscious. Later, the 93-year-old victim awakened, covered with blood, to find his 24-year-old assailant ransacking the bedroom. When Hill pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from near his bed, the robber lunged at him. Hill stopped his attacker with a single bullet to the throat. “I got what I deserved,” the robber told police afterward.
That episode happened in Arkansas last July, but similar acts of self-defense occur by the thousands all across America every year. Overwhelming historical evidence and common sense demonstrate that guns--often called the “great equalizer,” for obvious reasons--are a powerful method of self-defense in the precious minutes before police can arrive.
In the District of Columbia, however, citizens may not lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense, even in the home...at least, not yet. The Supreme Court has heard oral argument in D.C. v. Heller, which is expected to determine whether such a blanket ban violates the Second Amendment. But regardless of how the Court may interpret the Constitution, citizens deserve a legal right to own a handgun for self-defense.
As the Declaration of Independence recognizes, governments are created to protect our individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right of self-defense is included and implied in the right to life. In forming a government, citizens delegate the task of defending themselves to the police. But to delegate is not to surrender. Each citizen retains the ultimate right to defend himself in emergencies when his appointed agents, the police, are not available to help.
But what constitutes an emergency? What acts of self-defense are permissible in such a situation? And what tools may private citizens own for emergency self-defense? The law’s task is to furnish objective answers to such questions, so that citizens may defend their lives without taking the law into their own hands.
An emergency, properly defined, arises from an objective threat of imminent bodily harm. The victim must summon police, if possible. An emergency ends when the threat ends, or as soon as police arrive and take charge. During that narrow emergency interval, a victim may defend himself, but only with the least degree of force necessary under the circumstances to repel his attacker. A victim who explodes in vengeance, using excessive force, exposes himself to criminal liability along with his assailant.
Many objects commonly owned for peaceful purposes can be pressed into service for emergency self-defense. But unlike kitchen knives or baseball bats, handguns have no peaceful purpose--they are designed to kill people. The same lethal power that makes handguns the most practical means of self-defense against robbers, rapists, and murderers, also makes handguns an essential tool of government force. Handguns are deadly force and nothing but--a fact that gives rise to legitimate concerns over their private ownership in a civilized society.
These concerns can be resolved only by laws carefully drawn to confine private use of handguns to emergency self-defense, as defined by objective law. Such laws must also prohibit all conduct by which handguns might present an objective threat to others, whether by intent or negligence.
Contrary to an often expressed worry, therefore, a right to keep and bear arms in no way implies that citizens may stockpile weaponry according to their arbitrary preferences. Cannons, tanks, and nuclear weapons have no legitimate use in a private emergency, and their very presence is a threat to peaceful neighbors.
If handguns are confined to emergency self-defense, no legitimate purpose is served by an outright ban such as the District of Columbia enacted. Even if such laws actually deprived criminals of guns (which they don’t), they would infringe upon a law-abiding citizen’s right in emergencies to repel attackers who are wielding knives, clubs, fists--or cans of soda.
With the aid of his handgun, Willie Lee Hill survived that violent home invasion last July. Self-defense was his right, as it is ours. A proper legal system recognizes and protects that right, by permitting private ownership of handguns under appropriate limits.
Thomas A. Bowden is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute and the author of “The Enemies of Christopher Columbus.”
You wish it was only the state. Look at the AWB and the 1986 laws, and other federal nonsense that limit all those things you listed.
Tell that to the Cowboy Action shooters.
Yes, they did. But didn't they require written permission from Congress before they could actually use them?
Is that what you're suggesting for handguns? Pffffft! Not much of a right if you need the federal government to give you written permission.
This is where I disagree with the author.
In an emergency situation, the victim has little time to search around for a weapon that provides the least amount of force. If you have 2 guns handy, say a .22 & a .45, should you have “choose carefully” which weapon will do the job? Suppose it is a choice between pepper spray, a taser, or a pistol? Must you stop and consider carefully which weapon to use in defense?
The police are supposed to do this, but they are trained & tasked to deal with violence, whereas, the general public is not. An officer on duty is, or should be, ready for any violent occurrence, while a citizen in the “safety” of his home is not.
The victim cannot possibly have time to consider a weapons choice. I'm gonna guess that the vast majority of victims are gonna want to select the weapon most likely to stop the attacker, & that will always be the most powerful weapon. Neither can a victim possibly know whether the attacker will drop from the first hit, or keep coming, so the victim is justified, IMO, in continuing to fire until the attacker is stopped.
The law should be that in any unprovoked attack, the victim MUST assume the worst, & may use any & all means to stop the attacker. Also, the attacker is held solely responsible for any harm or damage to anyone or anything during the attack, including himself.
“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.****”
You can’t get much plainer than that.
Jefferson was suggesting the wording for the 1776 Virginia State constitution, 15 years before the second amendment was written.
And the true quote is, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements."
And it was rejected.
I didn't think it necessary to add "constitutional" laws. But, I'll be sure to add that in the future so you're not confused into thinking that I support any other.
The federal AWB is no more.
The 1986 laws were put in place to regulate the interstate transportation of such weapons. It's foolish to think that states can regulate gun traffic without federal involvement.
Nope. You're thinking about "Letters of Marque and Reprisal", which they needed in order to use them on behalf of the government in acts of war against ships of another nation. Use of the same weaponry in self-defense (as against pirates) needed no government permission, and neither did ownership thereof.
The reason we have a constitution is to make sure this statement is not true. The majority cannot take away a right granted in the constitution. That's why it was put there.
I’m not sure how ‘foolish’ that is, or even necessary at all. You sound like an ATF fanboy with that talk.
The practical effect of the rotten 86 law is the new machine guns of course. This is why gun rights have to be fought for constantly. We’re lucky to be rid of the AWB too, most everyone thought that was impossible.
We can at least hope the USSC will outlaw anymore federal gun laws. I don’t think they’ll remove any outright, but maybe it’ll make it easier for gun groups to gain back some freedoms.
The right of self-defense with a weapon, however, is regulated by each state as to 1) who may keep a weapon for self defense, 2) which weapons may be used for self defense and 3) the conditions under which those weapons may be used for self defense.
So, while an 86 y.o. grandmother has an inalienable right to self-defense, it only extends to the degree that she can accomplish such without weapons?
That's absurd. That inalienable right presupposes the ability to possess the tools necessary to accomplish it.
Prior to Prohibition, each state regulated alcohol. About half the states prohibited it.
The problem was, the "wet" states were smuggling their booze to the "dry" states. It was impossible for the dry states to control so they turned to the federal government for help.
Congress passed the Webb-Kenyon Act making that interstate transportation illegal.
So, when I say "foolish", I'm talking about "historically foolish".
Not even Washington, DC goes that far. Get series.
"That inalienable right presupposes the ability to possess the tools necessary to accomplish it."
So illegal aliens also have the right to those tools? Illegal aliens certainly have the God-given right to self defense. God loves them, too.
What about 8-year-olds? They have the right to those tools? Foreign visitors here on vacation? Prisoners? The insane?
Think about it, then get back to me.
Still couldn't afford to shoot the thing. Watching those Northern Arizona shoot-em-ups makes my wallet itch.
"God-given" and "inalienable" must have some curious connotation in your world.
So illegal aliens also have the right to those tools? Illegal aliens certainly have the God-given right to self defense. God loves them, too.
In God's eyes, yes. If we restrict that right, then it certainly isn't "inalienable." If we don't want these people exercising their God-given rights on our soil, then we should keep them out.
"What about 8-year-olds? They have the right to those tools?
Sure
Foreign visitors here on vacation?
Sure.
Prisoners? The insane?
They are wards whose safety is the responsibility of others.
Correct. The only way to restrict an inalienable right is individual due process in a court of law. We may only take a life if the individual has his day in court.
On the other hand, we may restrict the right to self defense with a weapon to, say, only adult citizens. The right to self defense may be inalienable, but the right to self defense with a weapon is not.
So I don't understand how you can say that we have to protect the right of a foreign visitor to a weapon for self defense? Or an 8-year-old. Or an illegal alien. Why must we protect their right?
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.