Where in The U. S. Constitution does it say one has to have a license or a permit keep and bear arms?

Answer 1

The Constitution does not say you have to have a license or permit to bear arms. Indeed, the constitution seems to state otherwise. This takes a little history, so you might need a cup of coffee.

When the second amendment was passed, it was designed to ensure that, if the Federal Government got to strong, or corrupt (you know, like the King), the American PEOPLE could once again revolt. The ideas of a militia are completely different today than they were 200 years ago. At that time, virtually everyone was considered to be in a militia, and they were usually not particularly organized organizations.

This concept of keeping arms available is very important. For example, one of the first things that the Russians did in Chechnya was to require all people to turn in all weapons (supposedly to prevent domestic violence).

Over time, the Government (against which the second amendment was designed to protect) has decided that we should not have weapons that can be used against the military -- they are too dangerous.

Also, the courts recognize that the constitution does allow the government the right (and the responsibility) to make laws for the common good. Thus, while they may not prevent gun ownership, they can regulate it.

Also, over time, the idea of the second amendment has been lost. There is a much stronger right to own weapons for hunting and, under current supreme court decisions, absolutely no right to (for example) own a tank.

Many constitutional scholars would argue that the government can (under the fourth amendment) ban hand-guns and hunting weapons (no constitutional right to hunt), but that the government should not be allowed to ban or restrict the sale of machine guns, tanks, and anti-aircraft weapons. Those are the weapons needed to fight the forces of the central government.

Before anyone takes issue with this view, let me add that I personally believe in gun control. However, I also believe that a constitutional amendment is required in order to do so.

Answer 2

Before you can understand the Constitution, you must first understand the purpose of constitutions. The Constitution also does not say you need a driver's license to drive, a hunting license to hunt, or a building permit to build you home. The Constitution sets forth broad principals for governing the country and the details are left to congress, states, cities and etc.

Answer 3

It says a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7


Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer

Answer 4

It doesnt.However some states have passed laws requiring licenses.Arizona,where I live dosnt require a license,in fact you can walk down the street here with a gun on your side and the police cant even approach on the matter.You do however have to pass a class and need a valid reason to carry a weapon concealed.I believe the concealed carry weapon license is about 20 bucks. Im not sure what the class costs.California doesnt offer a concealed weapons permit.

Answer 5

No. The Founding Fathers have been all adult men who believed in self-sufficiency, very own duty, and had a extraordinarily superior suspicion of the almighty State which that they had risked their lives, fortunes, and private honor to combat against. bear in mind England exchange right into a superpower on the time and the 13 colonies weren't even a pimp on the international's point. the final ingredient they needed exchange into to re-create the very comparable suffocating all effectual government here to rule over them. yet what you notice occurring interior the U. S. as we communicate is the direct and planned action of over 50 years of liberalism which as practiced via people who call themselves liberal is basically socialism which isn't something extra effective than a well mannered and politically proper call for a oppressive all effectual state. In 1776, our Founding Fathers adversarial the belief of divine rights of kings. All that has replaced is the "divine rights of kings" has remodel into the "divine rights of the socialist state". And as such, any and all opposition to the authority of the state is a probability and should be eradicated.

Answer 6

The second amendment grants the right to bear arms, however, due to the violent nature of today's society, laws were created to protect the people, thus making people have permits and their weapons registered. It is the same reason you have to give your ss# for sudafed.

Answer 7

It does not mention anywhere in the second, but since the courts over the years have been deemed the keeper of the laws they have decided that they will leave it up to each state independently to define what is meant by the 2nd, while no other of the first four bill of rights have been left to states to define

Answer 8

It doesn't to my knowledge, but it doesn't say that the government can't keep track of those arms, and by licences and permits is how they do it.
-Duo

Answer 9

Nowhere.

It also doesn't say I can't rob the jiffy mart either.

I think all US citizens can benefit by taking a Civics/US government class.

Answer 10

It doesn't, but states can make laws to regulate the sale and ownership of guns, they just can not make laws the forbid everyone from being able to own a gun.