Right to keep and bear arms

The English Bill of Rights 1689, passed in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution which overthrew the Catholic King James II, allows Protestant citizens of England and Wales to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." This restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms. Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law. The term arms, as used in the 1600s, refers to the process of equipping for war; it is commonly used as a synonym for "weapon". Today Great Britain's gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the world. Inclusion of this right in a written constitution is uncommon. In 1875, 17 percent of national constitutions included a right to bear arms. Since the early twentieth century, "the proportion has been less than 9 percent and falling". In an article titled "U.S. Gun Rights Truly Are American Exceptionalism", a historical survey and comparative analysis of constitutions dating back to 1789, ==Countries recognizing the right to keep and bear arms==

North America Guatemala The Mexican constitution of 1857 first included the right to be armed. In its first version, the right was defined in similar terms to those in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Mexican Constitution of 1917 revised the right, stating that its utilization must align with local police regulations. Another change was included in the 1917 Constitution. Since then, Mexicans have the right to be armed only within their homes, and further utilization of this right is subject to statutory authorization in Federal law. United States In the United States, which has an English common-law tradition, a longstanding common-law right to keep and bear arms was practiced before the creation of a written national constitution. Today, this right is specifically protected by the United States Constitution and many state constitutions. Europe Czech Republic }} Historically, the Czech lands were at the forefront of spreading civilian firearms ownership. Carrying became permitless until 1852, when Imperial Regulation No. 223 reintroduced carry permits. This law remained in force until the 1939 German invasion. The proposal was approved by a vote of 139 to 9 on 28 June 2017 by the Chamber of Deputies. It later failed to reach the necessary support in the Senate, where only 28 out of 59 Senators present supported it (with a constitutional majority being 36 votes). A new proposal was entered by 35 Senators in September 2019 and then approved on 21 July 2021, adding a new sentence, according to which "the right to defend one's own life or the life of another person even with the use of a weapon is guaranteed under the conditions set by the law." The provision is interpreted as guaranteeing legal accessibility of arms in a way that must ensure the possibility of effective self-defense and as a constitutional stipulation which underscores the individual right to be prepared with arms against an eventual attack, i.e., that courts cannot draw a negative inference from the fact that a defender had been preparing to avert a possible attack with the use of weapons. Switzerland The Swiss have a statutory right to bear arms under Article 3 of the 1997 Weapons Act. Switzerland practices universal conscription, meaning each Swiss male between the ages of 19 and 24 is conscripted. During the draft, they can choose to serve in the army or the alternative service, and, if they choose military service, following a brief period of active duty they will be enrolled in the reserve until 7 or 10 years after their promotion to the rank of private, or an inability to serve, ends their obligation. Until December 2009, these men were required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and/or semi-automatic handguns in their homes as long as they were enrolled in the armed forces. Since January 2010, they have had the option of depositing their issued firearm at a government arsenal. Until September 2007, soldiers received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home; after 2007 only about 2,000 specialist troops are allowed to keep the military-issued ammunition at home. In a referendum in February 2011, voters rejected a citizens' initiative that would have obliged members of the armed services to store their rifles and pistols on military compounds and required that privately owned firearms be registered. United Kingdom In the United Kingdom, there is no automatic right to bear arms, although citizens may possess certain firearms on obtaining an appropriate licence. Ordinary members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject to licensing, while handguns, automatic weapons, and semi-automatic weapons other than rimfire rifles in .22 calibre are illegal to possess without special additional conditions. All licensed firearms must be stored securely (locked) and separate from their ammunition when not attended. Regulations for airguns are less stringent and air pistols with a muzzle energy not exceeding and other airguns with a muzzle energy not exceeding do not require any certificates or licensing, although the same storage requirement applies. The first serious control on firearms was established with the passing of the Firearms Act 1920, handgun restrictions being added in response to the 1996 Dunblane Massacre in which 18 people died. Historically the English Bill of Rights 1689 allowed: Since 1953, it has been a criminal offence in the United Kingdom to carry a knife (except for non-locking folding knives with a cutting edge of or less) or any "offensive weapon" in a public place without lawful authority (e.g. police or security forces) or reasonable excuse (e.g., tools that are needed for work, or bows and arrows used for sporting purposes). The cutting edge of a knife is separate from the blade length. The only manner in which an individual may carry arms is on private property or any property to which the public does not have a lawful right of access (e.g., a person's own home, private land, the area in a shop where the public have no access, etc.), as the law only creates the offence when it occurs in public. Furthermore, Criminal Justice Act 1988 Section 141 specifically lists all offensive weapons that cannot technically be owned, even on private property, by way of making it illegal to sell, trade, hire, etc. an offensive weapon to another person. Furthermore, the law does not allow an offensive weapon or an ordinary item intended to be used or adapted for use as an offensive weapon to be carried in public before the threat of violence arises. This would only be acceptable in the eyes of the law if the person armed themselves immediately preceding or during an attack (in a public place). This is known as a "weapon of opportunity" or "instantaneous arming". Citizens not practicing Islam are prohibited from bearing arms and are required to be protected by the military, the state for which they pay the jizyah. They do not need to pay the zakat in exchange. Yemen Yemen recognizes a statutory right to keep and bear arms. Firearms are both easily and legally accessible. == Gun violence and the politics of the right to bear arms ==

countries, 2010, countries in graph ordered by total death rates (homicide plus suicide plus other gun-related deaths) Legal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are usually put in place by legislators in an attempt to reduce firearm-based violence and crime. Their actions may be the result of political groups advocating for such regulations. The Brady Campaign, Snowdrop Campaign, and the Million Mom March are examples of campaigns calling for tighter restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Accident statistics can be hard to obtain, but much data is available on the issue of gun ownership and gun-related deaths. United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) has made comparisons between countries with different levels of gun ownership and investigated the correlation between gun ownership levels and gun homicides, and between gun ownership levels and gun suicides. A "substantial correlation" is seen in both: UNICRI also investigated the relationship between gun ownership levels and other forms of homicide or suicide to determine whether high levels of gun ownership added to or merely displaced other forms of homicide or suicide. They reported that "widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potentially lethal instruments less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of suicide and homicide." The researchers concluded that "all we know is that guns do not reduce fatal events due to other means, but that they go along with more shootings. Although we do not know why exactly this is so, we have a good reason to suspect guns to play a fatal role in this". Other Some other research indicates that gun levels do not affect the total number of homicides or the total number of suicides, but rather affect the share of homicides or suicides committed with guns. Public-health critic, gun-rights proponent, and editor-in-chief of Surgical Neurology International Miguel Faria contended in 2012 that keeping and bearing arms not only has constitutional protection, but also that firearms have beneficial aspects that have been ignored by the public health establishment in which he played a part. A 2012 study in the journal Annual Review of Public Health found that suicide rates are greater in households with firearms than those without them. ==See also==