Is our right to keep and bear arms given by the constitution?

Question

Or is it a God given right and simply protected by the constitution?

God given in the broad sense of the meaning, of course.

"certain inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator..."

Answer 1

The Constitution of the United States of America, states that the people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is a right added to be a stop gap measure for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government intrusion. Due to the fact that at the time the King of England forced the colony folks to house the British soldiers, and were not able to stop them from unreasonable searches or siezures. Our founding fathers determined that this was a violation of man's basic freedoms. Not to be usurped by wicked men. The right to be free from harm or intrusion was based on the unalienable rights granted to mankind by God. This was codified in the Constitution for our protection and for our benefit. It is up to us who live by it, to make sure it stays in force! When we choose to allow it to be usurped we have effctively let the documnent become nothing but words on paper that are useless.

Answer 2

It is neither God given nor given by the Constitution. The Constitution's "Bill of Rights" does not give you those rights but states that they are protected from the government. There is some question if the 2nd Amendment is directed to the people or that of the States militia. You must understand that the concern of the day was to be able to protect yourself from an oppressive government, you might also take a look at the rarely mentioned 9th and 10th Amendments.

Answer 3

The Constitution does not rotect so-called God given rights. If anything, the Constitution protects you from any God related laws. Now, as to whether the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, at this point, that is how the Supreme Court interprets it. It is lodged in the Second Amendment, the right of States to have militias. Some people dispute that it translates into a right to bear arms and that the Constitution was misinterpreted.

Answer 4

The Constitution placed that there because at the time, there was no voluntary military and people needed to be on call if the new nation was ever in danger (which was expected at the time since the nation was young, disordered, and therefore vulnerable).

The exact line is: 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' In other words, the right to bear arms, as defined in the Constitution, is only protected for national security. But obviously, it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the law accordingly. Here are the landmark cases summarized (from my notes from Constitutional Law class last semester):

*United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms predated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They ruled that the right to bear arms was not dependent on the Constitution for its existence; consequently, the Second Amendment only forbade Congress, not the states, from infringing on it.

*Presser v. Illinois (1886)
In a case dealing with public military drilling by private organizations, the Supreme Court suggested that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

*Miller v. Texas (1894)
The Court confirmed that it had not incorporated the Second Amendment and applied it to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Since Miller had not made his objections in a timely fashion, the Court refused to address his arguments regarding incorporation.

*United States v. Miller (1939)
A shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long had no reasonable relation to the a well regulated militia and the Second Amendment did not protect the citizen’s right to keep and bear such a weapon. This is the only case in the Supreme Court has actually applied the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute.

*Lewis v. United States (1980)
Congress could prohibit convicted felons from owning firearms.

The Supreme Court was instituted to interpret the law accordingly with the times. As you can see, the Cruikshank case was very landmark in that it defined that people's right to protect themselves was natural and the Constitution only protected that. It went on to place the separation of federal and state govts, saying that the federal govt cannot take that right away, but the states could if they wanted to. It wasn't until the Presser case ten years later that stated that states had to follow the 2nd amendment due to the new 14th amendment (14th amend, section 1), which stated specifically that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." As you can see, later cases went on to build up on these cases, which defined what type of guns were subjected to scrutiny under the 2nd amendment.

We have no idea what the framers were intending with the 2nd amendment exactly. But the right to protect oneself from danger is inherent within everyone and the debate continues on as to whether the framers left the ambiguity within the 2nd amendment towards a militia or a right to protect oneself (since it was never specified anywhere else). But the Court has defined it as a natural right that cannot be taken away. And I agree with it, personally.

But whether you agree with it or not is up to you.

Answer 5

There's nothing "God-given" about the right to bear arms. Nor has any court stated that the 2nd Ammendment granted ordinary citizens any right to unfettered access to weapons.

The 2nd Ammendment confers upon the several states the right to raise militias. In the days of the birth of the nation, state militias were all volunteers and these people were responsible for providing their own weapons. The 2nd Ammendment bars the Federal government from restiricting the ownership of weapons used by militiamen. It says nothing about the states' rights in restricting the ownership of arms.

IMHO, that was the Founding Fathers' intent in the 2nd Ammendment though there are arguments on this from many different viewpoints.

Answer 6

When the Constitution was written, the right to keep and bear arms was considered a pre-existing God given right. The Second Amendment was never intended to "grant" that right, but rather to ensure it.

Answer 7

Given under the constitution. God didn't give us the right to own guns!

Answer 8

God said throw down your swords the constitution says bare arms

Answer 9

The Constituiton and Bill of Rights don't GRANT anything. They PROTECT rights recognized as God-given, such as the right to life/protection, and by extension that would include the MEANS to do so.

Answer 10

I don't remember that being in the Bible :P It is a right given by the constitution.