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

robert_dod

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.

carl l

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.

goz1111

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

rhett_madison

NO WHERE.

chewbaccars

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.

Robb

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

Bill(55 yrs old)

Where does it say you don't have to have a permit/licence?

Franklin

I dunno dude...you should check into geting a hold of some nucs....after all they're arms and the second says you should have em....

Duo

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

cantcu

You don't have to have one.

You have to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

You can have as many rifles as you want unless they are assault weapons!

Sandy G

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.

Lucy S

Nowhere.

Blunt Honesty

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.

Salem

Where it says that Congress has the right to make laws.

bran

It doesn't but we need to have a little say/control over who has them and also the govt needs to know what they will be up ag. when people start to retaliate

rec

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.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: