Tweet
The United States Supreme Court holdings on the Second Amendment and self-defense require that the right to bear arms be recognized outside the home.
The right to bear, or carry, arms is predicted by the Second Amendment. “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (interpreting the meaning of the operative clause of the Second Amendment). The US Supreme Court has embraced the meaning of “carries a firearm” as to “wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Id. at 584. By this definition it would be awkward to read “carry” as an exclusively residential activity. But it would also be contrary to the core purpose of the Second Amendment.
The US Supreme Court has held that a law which “makes it impossible for citizens to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense . . . is hence unconstitutional.” Id. at 630. The threat of unlawful attack certainly is not contained to residences. Justice Stevens conceded as much in his dissent in Heller, mentioning, “the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home . . . .”) Id. at 679. Indeed, the need for self-defense may be even stronger outside the home, where there are no strong doors and walls between attackers and their potential victims.
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has long held that the right of persons to defend themselves, even using deadly force, extends beyond the home. In Brown, the US Supreme Court held that “if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence.” Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343 (1921). Also in Brown, the Supreme Court addressed the argument that the right to self-defense was somehow diminished outside the land or living quarters of the person exercising that right. The Court rejected that argument, holding that “it is true that in the case of Beard he was upon his own land (not in his house,) and in that of Rowe he was in the room of a hotel, but those facts, although mentioned by the Court, would not have bettered the defence by the old common law and were not appreciably more favorable . . . .” Id. at 344.
Accordingly, it is clear that the right of self-defense extends beyond the home and to any place where a person has a lawful right to be. And, as the US Supreme Court has held, the core purpose of the right to carry arms is self-defense. Heller. at 571.Therefore any law which prevents a person from carrying arms in a place where he has a right to be, and thus makes it impossible to exercise his right to use such arms in self-defense, is necessarily unconstitutional. The only exceptions are for longstanding prohibitions on carry in “sensitive places” which the Supreme Court has specified includes “schools and government buildings.” Id., at 626. This is, however, the exception that proves the rule. There would have been no need for the Supreme Court to have carved out exceptions for carry in “sensitive” public places if the Second Amendment applied only within the home.
Statutes which effectively prohibit all carry of firearms by any law-abiding citizens outside the home prevent these citizens from exercising the right to bear arms for self-defense beyond the threshold of their dwellings. This leaves them effectively defenseless, potential victims of criminals who have no respect for any such prohibition on carrying arms. This absolute denial of the right of self-defense is a violation of the Second Amendment rights afforded all citizens of the United States and is therefore unconstitutional. Q.E.D.
The right to bear, or carry, arms is predicted by the Second Amendment. “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (interpreting the meaning of the operative clause of the Second Amendment). The US Supreme Court has embraced the meaning of “carries a firearm” as to “wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Id. at 584. By this definition it would be awkward to read “carry” as an exclusively residential activity. But it would also be contrary to the core purpose of the Second Amendment.
The US Supreme Court has held that a law which “makes it impossible for citizens to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense . . . is hence unconstitutional.” Id. at 630. The threat of unlawful attack certainly is not contained to residences. Justice Stevens conceded as much in his dissent in Heller, mentioning, “the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home . . . .”) Id. at 679. Indeed, the need for self-defense may be even stronger outside the home, where there are no strong doors and walls between attackers and their potential victims.
Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has long held that the right of persons to defend themselves, even using deadly force, extends beyond the home. In Brown, the US Supreme Court held that “if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence.” Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343 (1921). Also in Brown, the Supreme Court addressed the argument that the right to self-defense was somehow diminished outside the land or living quarters of the person exercising that right. The Court rejected that argument, holding that “it is true that in the case of Beard he was upon his own land (not in his house,) and in that of Rowe he was in the room of a hotel, but those facts, although mentioned by the Court, would not have bettered the defence by the old common law and were not appreciably more favorable . . . .” Id. at 344.
Accordingly, it is clear that the right of self-defense extends beyond the home and to any place where a person has a lawful right to be. And, as the US Supreme Court has held, the core purpose of the right to carry arms is self-defense. Heller. at 571.Therefore any law which prevents a person from carrying arms in a place where he has a right to be, and thus makes it impossible to exercise his right to use such arms in self-defense, is necessarily unconstitutional. The only exceptions are for longstanding prohibitions on carry in “sensitive places” which the Supreme Court has specified includes “schools and government buildings.” Id., at 626. This is, however, the exception that proves the rule. There would have been no need for the Supreme Court to have carved out exceptions for carry in “sensitive” public places if the Second Amendment applied only within the home.
Statutes which effectively prohibit all carry of firearms by any law-abiding citizens outside the home prevent these citizens from exercising the right to bear arms for self-defense beyond the threshold of their dwellings. This leaves them effectively defenseless, potential victims of criminals who have no respect for any such prohibition on carrying arms. This absolute denial of the right of self-defense is a violation of the Second Amendment rights afforded all citizens of the United States and is therefore unconstitutional. Q.E.D.
Comment