State Level Right to Bear Arms
Posted: 1/22/2004 12:29:39 PM
By: Comfortably Anonymous
Times Read: 2,032
0 Dislikes: 0
Topic: News: Politics
44 states have constitutional provisions concerning the right to bear arms.  Some are modelled after the seconds amendment, some make it painfully obvious that it is an individual right.

Below are the ones that are clearly an individual right (for hunting, self defense, or any other lawful purpose).

Alaska: Basically anyone who isn't a felon, and who is a resident, can carry concealed any time with no permit needed.

Alabama: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Ala. Const. art. I, § 26.

Arizona: "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." Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 26.

Colorado: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." Colo. Const. art. II, § 13.

Connecticut: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Conn. Const. art. I, § 15.

Delaware: "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." Del. Const. art. I, § 20.

Florida: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense (p.85)of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Fla. Const. art. I, § 8.

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

Idaho Const. art. I, § 11.

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Ill. Const. art. I, § 22.

Indiana: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State." Ind. Const. art. I, § 32.

Kansas: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." Kansas Bill of Rights § 4.

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

....

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.

Ky. Bill of Rights, § I, para. 7.

Louisiana: "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." La. (p.86)Const. art. I, § 11.

Maine: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." Me. Const. art. I, § 16.

Michigan: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Mich. Const. art. I, § 6.

Mississippi: "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." Miss. Const. art. 3, § 12.

Missouri: "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." Mo. Const. art. I, § 23.

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Mont. Const. art. II, § 12.

Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.

Neb. Const. art. I, § 1.

Nevada: "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." Nev. Const. art. 1, § II, para. 1.

New Hampshire: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state." N.H. Const. part 1, art. 2-a.

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

N.M. Const. art. II, § 6.

North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are ... to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

N.D. Const. art. I, § 1.

Ohio: Constitution (Article I)

§ 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851)

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense 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.
Oklahoma: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons." Okla. Const. art. 2, § 26.

Oregon: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power." Or. Const. art. I, § 27.

Pennsylvania: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Pa. Const. art. I, § 21.

Rhode Island: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." R.I. Const. art. I, § 22.

South Dakota: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied." S.D. Const. art. VI, § 24.

Tennessee: "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to 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." Tenn. Const. art. I, § 26.

Texas: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in 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." Tex. Const. art. I, § 23.

Utah: "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms." Utah Const. art. I, § 6.

Vermont: 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.

Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 16.

Washington: "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." Wash. Const. art. I, § 24.(p.89)

West Virginia: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use." W. Va. Const. art. III, § 22.

Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose. (Art. 1, § 25) [passed November, 1998]

Wyoming: "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied." Wyo. Const. art. I, § 24.

California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York do not have constitutional provisions on arms.
Rating: (You must be logged in to vote)
Discussion View:
Replies:

State Level Right to Bear Arms
Posted: 1/22/2004 12:29:39 PM
By: Comfortably Anonymous
Times Read: 2,032
0 Dislikes: 0
Topic: News: Politics
I remember a time when I stated the opinion that, since a handgun is an object designed for no purpose other than the taking of human life, it should be banned if society is serious about this "killing people is wrong" notion. For the sake of self-consistency alone, if not for any real effectiveness of such a ban. In specific, I was one of those who pointed to the qualifier - regarding well-regulated militias - as evidence that the framers did not intend for the common man to have a right to gun ownership.

However, I've become a bit less naive over the years (or so I like to kid myself :-). For one thing, after the Columbine tragedy, a million and one cretins began suggesting that pressing buttons on a keyboard to cause pixellated images to undergo pixellated animations of death was so mind-wrenching an experience that it drove these kids - who were for some reason already loaded down with shotguns and pipe-bombs - to go kill their classmates. Never mind the fact that I personally played more DOOM in my H.S. years than the entire "Trenchcoat Mafia" did in their lives, and haven't plotted mass murder yet - not even a little mass murder for a lark. Not once! So here I was, suddenly faced with the looming specter of people like Joe Lieberman clamoring to outlaw violent video games - and all of a sudden I knew just how the gun nuts had been feeling for years. I thought to myself, "Waitaminnit, self... aren't these the same folks who knee-jerk the exact same way against guns? Well, if their logic where *games* are concerned is this flawed..."

So I took a long step back and re-evaluated what actually causes gun violence, partially because I've also met quite a few responsible gun owners. I've come to the viewpoint that gun violence is caused by social ills, not the availability of weapons. If I have no desire to kill a man today, I will not desire to kill him tomorrow if have a gun by then. And conversely, if I wish to kill a man but do not have a gun, I'm not going to say "aww, shucks" and forget about it; I am going to kill him with a knife, a crowbar, a baseball bat, a blender, or something. Furthermore, guns are an ill that is not going away - if they are made illegal, then only criminals will have them. They're breaking the law anyway - think they mind breaking a gun law to help them break the FIRST law better, plus have a higher chance of getting away with BOTH crimes?

I thought a bit more about handguns. I visited NYC and saw the future: everyone jammed in cheek by jowl, no one has guns, everyone toes the line, and everyone is rude and surly. Compare to my state of birth, Indiana: everyone has guns, everyone has a loud and annoying opinion, and you don't hear much honking on the road. Also, it creeps me out that millions of people live on Manhattan, and all the government would have to do to enslave them all would be to put about 50 guys with machineguns and one tank on each bridge. (Ok, and a couple armed Coast Guard launches. And probably someone will find some other way to pick this apart, but I hope my meaning gets through, even if the delivery is flawed.)

Another thing: why is it we always see moaning in the media about kids shooting kids, but we never hear cheering when a pretty young woman uses her pistol and her NRA training to blow away a would-be rapist? It seems guns never get the good side (such as it is) told. I personally would prefer self-defense not require harming the other person, but taser technology just isn't as good yet. And that's what people say guns are for: self-defense. So why does the proper use of a handgun for self-defense never make it into the news?

Guns are also an equalizing factor. Think of what we have here: a device that can impose ultimate power / force over another human (threat of death), which requires only enough strength to hold the barrel steady and pull a trigger, and can be concealed easily under a coat or sweater. You'd have to have bad eyesight, be very elderly, or be extremely frail or ill to be unable to use a handgun. So they're usable by nearly every member of the population. Compare to ancient weapons, which required much greater coordination and strength, and since reach and muscle mass was of critical importance in melee combat, males were more dangerous with such weapons. Guns, however, favor neither men nor women, old nor young, black nor white, christian nor muslim.

What better deterrant could there be to crime? Obviously we're doing a poor job of rehabilitating criminals these days, so how about we work on some prevention? If every young, pretty woman in America had a pistol she knew how to shoot in her purse, and if every male knew it, how much rape do you think would happen? I'm not saying I love the idea of every human being carrying around the threat of single-serving ultimate force in their pocket, but it seems to be an equalizer of sorts. I think our society could use a little more equality. All we need is a comprehensive system for matching each bullet to a gun and each gun to an owner, so we know who shot who.

There are two issues with this that I can see: the "arms race" effect, and the "innocent bystander" effect. Last things first: There is no legitimate need for fully automatic weapons for self-defense. If enemies are coming at you so fast and furious that you can't crank trigger fast enough to stop them all, then you're probably too fucked for violent self-defense to be any use to you. Also, you may hit someone who's not involved in your crisis whatsoever, and that's just plain uncool.

As for the "arms race" effect, banning assault weapons will stop part of it. The other angle is armor. Would criminals take to wearing kevlar before they go mug or rape someone? Possibly. If that were so, it would become safety for the rich, who could afford armor-piercers and armor, over the poor. But then, it's just that on another level today - gun haves, gun have-nots. However, it still gives crime victims a fighting chance, because as of yet, bulletproof helmets aren't commonly available.

I personally don't plan on owning a gun, because if I was attacked violently and shot and killed my attacker, I don't think my conscience would let me rest well again. Yes, I'm a softie. However, I do plan on getting, and being trained in the use of, a Taser when I can afford it. Next best thing, I guess. And my days of bashing the guns-as-self-defense argument are over.


-Kasreyn

P.S. I'm sure the idea of an armed and trained populace doesn't appeal to the government, either. If they ever need to declare Martial Law - strictly for our protection, you understand *wink* - they might have a harder time pulling it off with that many more armed, pissed-off citizens who know the land better than their soldiers do.
Rating: (You must be logged in to vote)