Arms for Personal Protection
A Legal but Not Constitutional Right
An in-law recently asked if I believed individuals had the right to own firearms for personal protection. I replied that it was a legal right but not a constitutional right. As expected, this response drew sharp criticism. So I explained my reasoning.
It is probably beneficial to review the first two amendments of the Constitution. The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment follows with the words:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The First Amendment gets directly to the point by establishing that Congress cannot make laws prohibiting or abridging the right of the people to freedom of religion, free speech, and peaceful assembly. No conditional qualifications were deemed necessary by the founding fathers. The language is straightforward “Congress shall make no law…”
