Talk:Right to keep and bear arms/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Canada

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada found that, "Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms". In 2001, an Ontarian firearms dealer facing multiple charges of weapons violations argued that the Canadian Constitution included a right to bear arms. A trial court rejected the claim, and an appeals court upheld that rejection. On September 16, 2010, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

In other words, there is no right to keep and bear arms in Canada. Do we need to list every country that has no such right? That'd be weird. Felsic2 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/Archive_10#Right_to_bear_arms_in_Canada.3F#Coatrack clean-up Felsic2 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be expanded. In the 19th century governments considered there was a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but the Bill of Rights 1689 was not incorporated into the written constitution. There may in fact be a common law right, protected by statute, but which may nonetheless be abridged by subsequent statutes. TFD (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing about it in Constitution_of_Canada or Constitution_Act,_1867. What source says that there used to be a RTKBA in Canada? Can you add it please? Felsic2 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms In Canada This site isn't reliable, but it is thorough. However it seems to conclude that whatever right existed only derived from the British Bill of Rights 1689 as a sort of common law thing. I scanned it qucikly, but I can't find anywhere that it cites anyone else as saying there was an actual RTKBA. This source [1] doesn't dwell on the distant past, but says there is no right. Felsic2 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was historically a right to keep and bear arms in Canada, for example, in 1775, the same as in the Colonies. However, due to parliamentary supremacy, the right was stripped from Canada. In the United States, in contrast, the common law right was codified as it existed circa 1775, into the US Constitution a few years later, and was protected. There is no modern day right in Canada to a right to keep and bear arms, however. If anything, this section should be expanded, not blanked. Have restored the cited material. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Canada was not Canada until 1867, at which time there was no constitutional RTKBA in the Constitution. You are trying to map the revisionist folklore from gun politics in the US onto Canada and it is not correct. There has never been a constitutional RTKBA and if you go and look up the 1837 Rebellion in the colonies, you will see that no such right existed, as they had to rob armouries to get arms. Some people may have had guns for hunting, but they were not granted as a right. The section on Canada does not belong in this article. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Cuba

• The right to keep and bear arms ... is the people's right to possess arms for their own defense...
• Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba states: "When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution."

One thing ain't the same as the other. I'm cutting the Cuba material. There's no source calling this 'rkba'. It doesn't fit the definition. The intro says "three still include a right to bear arms: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States". We oughta have a section on Guatemala instead. Felsic2 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The right to defend oneself against one's own government. Restoring. Scr★pIron^IV 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Need one of two things: either a source saying Cuba has a RTKBA, or a contemporary definition that says RTKBA is about protecting the state. Felsic2 (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Added a stub section on Guatemala. Liberia had the right for a long time - maybe it oughta have a section too. Felsic2 (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I restored the material related to Canada because the description in the edit summary removing the material, when compared to the text of the material, seemed to actually support keeping the material in the article. Here' why: Obviously, if under Canadian law there is no right to bear arms AND the material says that there is no such right, then using the edit summary argument that Canadian law does not recognize that right does not really support removal of the material from the article. It's like saying: "I'm going to remove this material because it's correct and I agree with it and it's properly sourced."

The argument in favor of keeping the Cuba material is less clear.

I don't have a strong opinion either way for whether the Canada and Cuba material should be in the article or stay out. I had restored the material mainly because the edit summary didn't seem to make logical sense. Famspear (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: I think Felsic2's argument has some merit: Do we really want to list every country that does NOT have laws recognizing a right to bear arms? If we did, that would make the article a bit large, I think.

On the Cuba thing (and maybe someone has already pointed this out), a general statement in the Cuban constitution like the one quoted would not necessarily mean that individual Cubans actually have a right to keep and bear arms -- at least not in the sense that is intended by the article. Do we actually have a reliable source that an individual Cuban has such a right that a Cuban court recognizes? That's the real test. Famspear (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If Canada used to have a RTKBA, then that'd be relevant. But no one is claiming that Cuba does or used to have one. Let's leave Canada in for now, and take out Cuba until someone can find a secondary source for it. Felsic2 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Famspear (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Canada has never had a RTKBA. There is no support for Canada ever having a RTKBA. Including every country which has no RTKBA would be silly when only three countries actually have a RTKBA. In other words, following from your reasoning, ALL countries, including countries that have no RTKBA, should be included in this article. That would make this just a pointless bit of puffery where 99 per cent of the entries indicate no RTKBA. In short, the article just becomes a sham pushing the notion of RTKBA beyond the true tiny minority of countries that actually have such a right. Only including countries that DO have a RTKBA would keep this article more truthful and more succinct and to the point. Canada needs to be removed -- as does the entire section on Europe. I will stick to removing Canada for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.108.55 (talk • contribs)

Dear IP 99.242.108.55: See the comment by Miguel Escopeta in the next section above. Maybe we should wait and see if we can find sources on whether Canadians had a common law right in the mid 1700s, and if so what happened to that common law right over the years. Famspear (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI - I cut the "coatrack" and "gloablize' tags because the article has been changed significantly in the last two years and those problems don't seem to exist any longer. Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Switzerland Gun Homicide Rates and Proportion of Homicides completed with a firearm

Hello. 2001 is a 15-year-old study. There are more up-to-date data available at gunpolicy.org (also UN sourced). If you have a look at the data available there, you will see that Switzerland is not low in gun homicides compared to the rest of Europe either in proportion of homicides committed with a firearm or firearm homicides per 100,000 population.. For example, have a look at these two comparisons:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/178/gun_homicides_who/11,18,280,66,69,88,71,125,282,149,192

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/178/rate_of_gun_homicide/11,18,280,66,69,71,88,125,149,172,192

I need to do a bit more fiddling to see exactly what the data are, but they are more up to date than 2001. I think you are correct that the current wording of that section is off, but I would be more than willing to work with you to make the wording better and more up-to-date. In the mean time, I have put the original wording back until we can hash this out.99.242.108.55 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are outdated statistics. I am using statistics from 2015.

There were 17 gun homicides (excluding attempts) in Switzerland in 2015: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/02/key/02/10.html a rate of 0.20 per 100,000. The Netherlands had 41 gun homicides (excluding attempts): http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=81453eng&D1=a&D2=0&D3=a&D4=0,9,(l-1),l&LA=EN&VW=T this is a rate of 0.24. These are stats straight from NATIONAL STATISTICAL OFFICES of the respective countries.

I am using latest rates, and you are using outdated ones. Why on earth would you remove the UNICRI 2001 study and keep the one from 1993 in the article? 2600:8800:5484:C900:90DC:BEEF:B6AE:D087 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The references you provide do not corroborate your statements. You have removed more than one substantiated statement and substituted your own opinion without any real support. The policy.org stats most certainly are up to date. You appear to be just POV-pushing. Explain exactly how your statements are supported before you remove supported statements and substitute your own. 99.242.108.55 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you lose. Thanks to my e-mail gunpolicy.org has updated the statistics: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/178/rate_of_gun_homicide/11,49,50,18,65,69,71,232,86,66,88,125,136,177,172,149,192

Greece, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, France, and Ireland all have HIGHER gun homicide rates than Switzerland. Switzerland ranks 7th.

And again, you remove the 2001 UNICRI study that contradicts the 1993 one. You're the one with an agenda. 2600:8800:5484:C900:A061:5E47:CA80:1270 (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody here should be accusing anyone of editing with an agenda. See WP:NPA. As for statistics, they change. The best solution would be to include both old and new statistics. "In 1993, a study showed... A 2001 study said that...." They're both right. Felsic2 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic should also have a section as it's notable for being quite a gun friendly country. 2601:8C:4102:1210:C83D:8223:6790:706B (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I previously made a minor edit to a statement relating to knife laws in the UK. The article initially stated that it is an offence to carry a knife in a public place without good reason. This was supported by a reference in the form of a web link to official government guidance (which is as credible a reference you will get). Whilst broadly correct, it is not totally accurate. The document referenced clearly states there is an exemption for non-locking pocket knives with a blade no longer than 3 inches. I received notification that the edit had been reverted, asking me to reference my good faith edit. I do not feel this is necessary, as I have not made any point that is not supported by the original reference. I have merely 'tweaked' the original statement (without even adding an additional sentence) to more accurately reflect the information from that existing reference. Ganglandboss (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The article contains the misleading statement that «Since the passing of gun control laws, the UK has one of the lowest firearm death rates among developed nations, with 0.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 10.2 in the U.S.[29]». This is a misleading statement since it uses an intentionally cherry picked statistic (firearm death rate instead of homicide rate); the United States comparison could also be construed as intentionally misleading, since it ignores a lot of factors. As such, I would argue it is violating WP:NPOV by inserting bias into the article. 92.81.115.213 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Right To Bear Arms in America Guns are needed and are a right to the American people. Many Americans have had a change of thought regarding guns and the laws that have been set forth due to many tragic events that have taken place on American soil. What good things can a gun do for us? A lot, but one particular is that actually guns protect people. For instance, the tragic mass shooting that took place at a church in a small town in Texas on November 5, 2017 the shooter was confronted by nearby neighbor (that had a gun) of the church that had a shoot out with this monster that killed many innocent people. If this hero had not took it upon himself to confront this person a lot more people could have been killed that very day. Having a gun gives Americans a peace of mind, they can stop burglaries. Guns do not kill people the person behind the trigger is the one that decides to harm another person. Even without guns there will still be killings in America by cars, knives, anything that a person can harm another with. If America votes to go forth by doing away with guns completely people will still illegally be able to get guns and more so the people that commit crimes, truthful Americans will not break the laws and then be without a gun to protect themselves and their families if an offender has a gun and breaks into the families homes. There is many angles to look at this situation, but one thing is certain guns do not kill without the trigger being pulled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadame (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC) References

The right to keep and bear arms

The article describes what this right is, then goes on the US section to decribe the rights in broader terms, like personal defense....It's just not there...not even hunting..."a well ordered militia," is the only context included. Target practice, sport shooting are NOT guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment...anywhere. The baring of arms does not include anything but ownership for the well ordered milita, that's all that in there. The 2nd Amendment has been obsolete since the US started handing out wea[ons to soldiers. The whole thing applies to nothing anymore, by virtue of it's first 3 words. it is presently meanless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.187.100 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Regulated had a different definition back then. Are you a constitutional lawyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anikom15 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom."

This isn't true: The article even says "The English Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestants the right to bear arms within the law". The Bill of Rights is part of the English constitution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.62.141 (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The operative words being "within the law." The law changed, which is unsurprising given that 329 years have elapsed. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the right went away, no matter how much it was curtailed Rivalin (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Since the passing of gun control laws, the UK has one of the lowest firearm death rates among developed nations, with 0.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 10.2 in the U.S.[29]" What a staggeringly dishonest line this is, it implies false causality with absolutely no grounds (cue some weasel words from one of the gun control zealots who'll try to defend it). The UK had one of the lowest rates of firearms deaths before the passing of those gun control laws. Rivalin (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrectness of "No right to bear firearms exists under international law, in particular there is no human right to self-defense and its means"

The article linked as proof in fact says the exact opposite, with an entire section titled "Duty to recognize a right to self defense." Accordingly, I am editing the previous "No right to bear firearms exists under international law, in particular there is no human right to self-defense and its means. Instead, states are under an obligation to reasonably limit access to firearms as part of their duty to protect the right to life.[14]" Apfox (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In your change you say that "states are given significant latitude" in allowing self-defense, but the source actually says international law sets limits on what states can allow (see p. 36). TFD (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References

"Called by this proponents"

Bringing a brief edit war to the talk page.

Proponent = a person who speaks publicly in support of a particular idea or plan of action.

An introductory definition in encylopedia needs to be a factual statement of what the article is about. Right to keep and bear arms is self-explanatory. However User:HiLo48 feels the need to bring his bias into the article by adding subjectivity into the introductory sentence.

User:HiLo48 Please explain the motivation behind your edit warring. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

1. One edit is not an edit war.

2. We all have biases. Yours are apparently different from nine.

3. There are many possible definitions of a right to keep and bear arms. It is simply not self-explanatory.

4. Absolute certainly is a sign to me of a lack of depth and breadth of thought on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

We are not arguing the meaning of Second Amendment. We are talking about "Right to keep and bear arms". Basically what you are saying is that right to keep and bear arms may mean something else than a right to keep and bear arms.

If there are "many possible definitions" than it's up to you bring them forward and list them in the intro in a meaningful way. Not to take a sourced definition (with a reference) and re-write it to your liking. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm really busy at the moment, and cannot be bothered nor do I have the time for debating with someone with a closed mind, but you really do need to look more widely. Perhaps just start by considering the fact that things are very different from the USA in most of the rest of the world, and most people are very happy with it. Then look into why. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Either make your case or decist. FYI I am not from the US. This article is not about what anyone is happy with, this article is about RKBA. If there are other defitions, provide them. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a small semantic (or grammatical) objection to the wording. I would also delete "proponents' (since it's not a proposition advanced by only one side; the boundaries are what's argued), but IMO saying the term is "defined as" should be added. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding of all the countries that have no consitutional RKBA

This article is getting ridiculous by IP users repeating information from various other articles on gun laws in certain countries only preceded by "no constitutional RKBA protection".

Unless those countries/systems are in any way specific (like the section on Sharia law), they should be summed up in a single part. This article is not enriched by adding of all the miscellaneous information. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that countries without a constitutional RKBA have no place in this article—and that most certainly includes the Czech Republic. But if one country without a CRKBA is included with its own section, then there is every reason to include all countries. I have been working at clarifying this article for a long time. Switzerland and the UK have been left as countries without CRKBA as US gun rights adherents on WP believe they have a special place here. The inclusion of a huge section on gun laws in Czech Republic here is the major offender: so much verbiage, so little pertinence to the topic of the CRKBA. And now it comes complete with a sidebar and a pointless photograph?

I understand that there has been a move to add a US-style amendment to the Czech Constitution to enshrine the RKBA. If that happens, then a succinct section on the Czech Republic is warranted, along with a re-write of the lede. As it stands, the inclusion of the Czech Republic here is a glaring example of what you are complaining about.

Remaining as an IP user is my choice. It is honest and you can actually see where I live.99.236.244.35 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that countries without a constitutional RKBA have no place in this article

You are admitting to bad faith editing and edit warring.

Switzerland and the UK have been left as countries without CRKBA

This article is not called CONSTITUTIONAL RKBA but simply RKBA. The fact is that 1689 English Bill of Rights includes right to be armed - but unlike US it states that this right shall be limited by law. This is important not only as regards UK, but also development of US RKBA.

Switzerland simply has RKBA. Lack of CRKBA is a different issue.

Adding CRKBA is a topic that is happening right now in the Czech Republic. Meanwhile, we do have RKBA, albeit conditional upon completion of several legal requirements. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not admitting to anything. Read the lede for the CRKBA. Inclusion of the Czech Republic is wrong; it does not fit. It is completely misleading. The other countries without a CRKBA listed are like the Czech Republic, and if you want to include the Czech Republic here, then the other countries also belong. The huge section on gun laws in the Czech Republic does not improve the article; it just obfuscates the issue. Sorry.2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:B9D6:DDA3:1D4D:6ACC (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Again this is not CRKBA. This is RKBA article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That’s enough. It’s just convoluted reasoning and petty accusations—which are false. 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:2426:9DF3:33E9:CAEE (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the lede 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:2426:9DF3:33E9:CAEE (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Article name change discussion

This article should not be called RTKBA, but moved to "Gun Laws of the World" Discuss. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

AGREED. There are only three countries that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States. The rest of the countries included in the article do not have a RKBA spelled out in their constitutions. This could be moved to a "Gun Laws of the World" to point out the oddity of having such a "right" given constitutional protection. In fact, the coverage of the RTKBA is already looked after in Right to keep and bear arms in the United States, as Guatemala and Mexico's RTKBA may have been based on RTKBA in the US. The rest of the sections in RTKBA are meaningless as they certainly don't represent countries that have such a right and the article has been reduced to a means to push personal opinion.2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:B9D6:DDA3:1D4D:6ACC (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Again, IP's argument is invalid since he again pushes the narrative of CKRBA, while the article is RKBA. Roxy, the dog., please make your case, you put no reason forward apart from "should be". Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This article seems to have become a hobbyhorse for those who have reduced the value of the article to just be a way to push irrelevant gun politics from their own country. It appears that if you can't get your own way, the recourse is to call an editor "IP," file a bogus sock puppet case against those who oppose you, and enlist the aid of other editors to block legitimate editing of the article. This article started out as a way to push US-centric views on gun politics onto the rest of the world. Any arguments contained in it are found elsewhere in a more complete form. The article is about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as is/was discussed in the lede. 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:B9D6:DDA3:1D4D:6ACC (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

call an editor "IP,"

You yourself have admitted to edit warring in this article under multitude of various IPs.

legitimate editing of the article

I fail to see the added value of repeating information from all of the national legislation articles, with merely adding the sentense "no CRKBR". Those were bad faith edits that were not adding anything of informational value.

This article started out as a way to push US-centric views on gun politics

How exactly is that in an article that almost omits mentioning US?

The article is about the constitutional right to keep and bear arms

You keep repeating that. It is simply not so. Before your edit warring, the bulk of information in the article were about Switzerland (RKBA but no CRKBA) and England (arguably RKBA through the Bill of Rights, but clearly no CRKBA). Right now the article lists 1 country with clear RKBA, 2 countries with CRKBA the constitution of which expect statutory limits, 2 countries with RKBA and England due to its specific situation with Bill of Rights. Clearly, this article is not about RKBA. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Baseless accusations. How petty. 2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:B9D6:DDA3:1D4D:6ACC (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, if we are not moving the article, why do we have so much stuff that is off topic, as most of the world does not have that right, just a few three TPLAC's. Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Historically, the right was recognized under both English and Scottish law and hence throughout the British Empire. It was added to the U.S. constitution and copied into many constitutions modelled on the U.S. Although only three formal national ocnstitutions contain the right, at one time it was fifteen.[2] Arguably the right still exists in Commonwealth countries, although the supremacy of parliament has made it moot. (The only restrictions on gun ownership in Commonwealth countries are those in legislation.) TFD (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Which brings us back to this really being (in your mind at least) about the CONSTITUTIONAL right, the All-American thing. This article would not exist were it not for the current gun idiocy in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

But it was a constitutional right, and maybe still is, in the UK, Canada and the rest of the British Commonwealth. The only difference is that in Commonwealth countries, the people could restrict the right through their elected parliaments, while in the U.S. it requires 3/4ths of the state legislatures. The Canadian government for example held that even Irish immigrants had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms when local officials tried to disarm them. Mind you, that was in the 19th century. TFD (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"...maybe still is, in...the rest of the British Commonwealth" The word "...maybe" doesn't make a strong argument. As someone who watched closely the happenings in Australia that led to our current legislation, I saw no claim from gun enthusiasts that there was anything in the constitution to help their case. Pretty sure they would have used it had it existed. And I just examined the Australian constitution - https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/media/AC79BBA0B87A4906A6D71ACCEEF10535.ashx - the words "arms" isn't there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

That is the written constitution. There is also the use a in broader sense, as in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, which is "a sum of laws and principles that make up the country's body politic." See: "Civil Liberties and the Absence of a Bill of Rights": "Australia's historical approah to protection of fundamental freedoms has been based in the notion that the rights and processes established by the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the common law were imported to Australia by British colonists and provide sufficient protection.[3]] Also, The Story of Australia: "English law was transplanted into the Austraian colonies by virtue of the doctrine of reception, thus notions of the rights and processes established by the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 were brought from Britain by the colonists."[4] Of course as I mentioned, parliaments have the power to restrict these rights. Hence it is moot today, although it had historical significance and has never been specifically repealed. In any case, that "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" certainly formed part of the laws of Australia, at least at some point. TFD (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You are wandering all over the place with that comment. My simple point is that there is nothing about arming oneself in the Australian constitution, and never was. Remember, Australia did not exist as a legal entity until 1901. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Then lets wander back. There was a colonial law in force in Australia that protected the right to be armed, hence its relevance to the "right to keep and bear arms." Note too that the Succession to the Crown Act 2015, Part 4 recognizes that the Bill of Rights 1689 is part of Australian law. (Note too that the Australian states existed as legal entities prior to 1901.) TFD (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion in a book about gun control in Canada about 19th century views on gun rights which says that if was common among liberals to believe the right existed, and this was reflected in government thinking.[5] Of course unlike Australia, the government wanted people to be armed. TFD (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Two problems there. Firstly, are you aware that the major conservative party in Australia is the Liberal party? Please take care not to use American language when discussing the rest of the world. Secondly, your implication that the government disarmed them Australian people. That's a standard American gun lover falsehood. Pure NRA bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Three problems actually - it implies that only Protestants in Australia "may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law". I am not even sure that this quote can be construed as a "right to bear arms", as it says that it is subject to the law - just like everybody else on this planet.

The real issue with this article - what is its purpose and scope? It began its life in 2003 as a redirect to the US Second Amendment and has since developed into a poorly constructed mélange of material that is also available from the "See Also" articles found in the hatnote, and remains at Quality=Start class even after the passage of 15 years. William Harris • (talk) • 09:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me as if we have a consensus to remove anything not about the three TPLAC's with the "right". It wont take long, when I start. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I found my way here from the "Bill of Rights 1689" article. This RTCBA article is nothing that I would normally search for, and I believe that it needs to either (a) have an axe put through it and be deleted, or (b) have a scalpel taken to it as you have suggested. In its current form it is attracting well-meaning editors who get bogged down arguing minutiae, when their talents would be better invested in providing content elsewhere on Wikipedia. I would also be inclined to delete WikiProject Politics from this talk page because for the 3 jurisdictions Constitutionally involved it is not a political issue, it is a matter of legal fact. William Harris • (talk) • 11:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, no idea why you think when I referred to 19th century liberalism I was using the "American language referring to modern American liberalism which developed in the 1930s. Let's stick to the point and avoid digressions. See Gun Control in Canada, pp. 58-59: "Several MPs argued that Canadians, as British subjects, had a right to bear arms. This belief fit well with the liberal principles dominant in the late nineteenth century, which emphasized individual liberty and property rights....Prominent Liberal MP, and future Supreme Court of Canada Justice, David Mills also raised the constitutional concern. He called the bill [disarming aboriginals] "very objectionable," for the British constitution held that it was "one of the rights of a British subject to have fire arms in his possession." It was "one of the provisions of the declaration of rights," he declared in referring to the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Mills, like Blake, even referenced the American Second Amendment as a source for his claim, arguing that the American constitution had simply copied the fundamental privileges of British liberty."[6]

William Harris, the Bill of Rights 1689 is generally considered to protect rights, even though it can be amended. It limited the power of the Crown to act without parliament, which was a major issue at the time.

TFD (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for sharing something about a document to which I have recently supplied the link to in this article after having read it in depth. More importantly to us, perhaps you might share your views on what you see as the purpose and scope of this RTKBA article and where it might go from here. William Harris • (talk) • 09:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I will add something further based on the source I provided. I think the key points are that the right to keep and bear arms was believed by English liberals to be part of the common law and was protected under the Bill of Rights and transplanted to English colonies. It subsequently was incorporated into the United States constitution and other constitutions modeled on the U.S. Today it has become moot in Commonwealth countries, although it occassionally is brought up in debates and litigation and most countries that protected the right in their constitutions have removed it. The relevance to this discussion is that at least historically the right was not restricted to the U.S. and the two other countries that recognize the right today. TFD (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You have already raised these points above and I am not disagreeing with you. What are your views on the article - do you believe that it should remain as it is or would it benefit from changes, and if so changes in which direction? William Harris • (talk) • 08:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that the focus of the article should be on the theory that there is a common law right to own weapons, with an emphasis on England the U.S. The article should also mention which countries created or protected the right in their constitutions. It should mention the debate over whether any such right did exist. I do not see any reason to have a section for every country that recognized the right or - worse - every country that does not. I think it would be helpful if editors approach the topic as one of legal theory, rather than the political wedge issue of the day. TFD (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why exactly was the entire European section deleted? Swiss law clearly construes right to be armed. Similarly with Czech law, where moreover there is proposal to have that right also protected by constitution.

Totally ommissing English law and Bill of rights makes this a farce. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, in an article called "Gun Laws Of The World", but in one about RTKBR etc, this right does not exist in those countries, despite what you say, so SYNTH and OR removed as irrelevant to this article -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It's OR. Every country that has legislation regulating gun ownership either recognizes or creates a right for some citizens to own some weapons. You need a source that shows the Swiss and Czech laws are in some way different from any other country. TFD (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

They are different in that it is judicially enforceable right. In almost all other countries the authorities have the final say and a citizen cannot demand access to a firearm through court procedure. Both Czech and Swiss law are clearly different in this regard.

Article 3 of Swiss firearms act clearly states: "The right to acquire, possess and carry weapons is guaranteed under this Act."

Czech Firearms Act is construed in a way that every citizen has right to keep and bear arms subject to fulfilling its conditions.

Most other legal systems state that authorities MAY allow a person access to firearm. That is clear difference. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally how discretion is exercised is either spelled out or implied. For example, Canada's Firearms Act (1995), s. 68, says a chief firearms officer "may refuse to issue an authorization to carry or authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason." However, the act later provides for appeals from the decision to a magistrate or judge. Furthermore, even if the act did not provide for appeals, under common law, a person turned down could apply for a writ of mandamus ordering a government official to issue a permit. Saying an officer "may" issue a permit is at his or her discretion is misleading, if a court can determine they exercised discretion incorrectly and order them to issue one. You need a secondary source that says that the Swiss law is somehow different from the laws of other countries. Bear in mind that Switzerland is a civil law country and the terminology may differ. TFD (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You actually proved my point. No average Joe has a chance of having a carry permit issued in Canada. With court review or without.

But still, you didn't argue the main point. Swiss law explicitely states that there is a right to be armed under the given act. Is that spelled out in Canada too? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

According to Gun laws in Switzerland#Carrying guns, a carry permit in Switzerland "in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security." Same as Canada. But I asked you to provide a secondary source that says the Swiss law is somehow different. Comparisons are original research and therefore require secondary sources. And it requires someone who is an expert in both civil and common law, which I am not and suspect you are not either.

To your last point, Canadian law either recognizes or creates a right to carry weapons, just as the Swiss law does. You need a source that says there is something special about using the word right beyond how legislation is normally phrased in the two legal systems. It could mean something, but you need an expert source that says so. Note too that your source is in German, so you need to show that the German word Recht means exactly the same thing as right.

TFD (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a wp:notable topic and by that name. And it spans a variety of areas....claims of an inherent right, a right given by constitutions, a right given by laws, arguments that it should become one of those where it isn't, arguments that it should un-become so where it is. Clearly should be an article, and trying to just call it gun laws is not a viable replacement. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Right to keep and WHAT?

The word "bear" has a lot of meanings, but none of them fits the context. Assuming that it means "to carry somebody/something, especially while moving" we have a problem because our article is only about possessing, and says nothing about carrying. I thought that I knew this word very well... until now. The explanation in the article: "In Old English, beran (past tense bær) means to bear, bring, bring forth, or produce; to endure or sustain; or to wear." is useless in the current context, at least to me.
Here is what we can do with arms:

1. keep    Clear, but we don't know if we can also carry them.
2. carry    Clear. It implies that we are allowed to keep them too, at least temporarily.
3. keep and carry    Clear.
4. bear    Unclear.
5. keep and bear    Unclear. Keep and what?

Any ideas? Vikom ^talk 23:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not research the topic and add it? TFD (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Haiti and Austria

I think that Haiti should be added into the Americas section because they're constitution guarantees the right to keep arms for armed self defense in their household while besting arms in public is a privledge just like Mexico. Austria should be added in the Europe section as they have the right to bear arms as guranteed by law. GermanicSoutherner15 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

UK

"Since the passing of gun control laws, the UK has one of the lowest firearm death rates among developed nations, with 0.2 deaths per 100,000, compared to 10.2 in the U.S."

This sentence implies that the gun control laws are the reason firearm death rates are low in UK. And since US is known for its high firearm ownership, this also implies that high firearm death rates in US are caused by high firearm ownership. The source cited does not support these implications. I do not have the historical firearm death rates data, but I do have the historical intentional homicide rate data. And this data shows that US has always had much higher homicide rates than UK (England and Wales to be precise), even when both of these countries had absolutely no gun control laws. Additionally the homicide rate in UK is very steady, most of the time it stays in the 0.8-1.2 range and there is no visible decrease when further restrictions on gun ownership are placed. (For charts visualizing this, search for "England historical homicide rates" in Google Images.) Therefore I consider this sentence misleading and believe it should be removed. 192.198.151.43 (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

UK (England) Bill of Rights

As far as I can make out, the provision in the English Bill of Rights (1688/89) declaring the right of Protestant subjects to bear arms is still in force, so it seems odd for the current article to state simply that there is no constitutional or legal protection for the right to bear arms. Of course, like any Statute the 1688/9 Act could be repealed or amended, but as far as I can see the 'arms' provision has not been amended. It was always a limited provision, since it qualifies the 'right' by the words '... Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law'. Presumably the various laws regulating the possession and use of arms are considered to fall within the phrase 'as allowed by law'.109.150.6.148 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to be renamed as "Constitutional right to keep and bear arms" to avoid it being just a repeat of a laundry list of world gun laws

Here we go again. Right to keep and bear arms has been co-opted by Cimmerian Praetor in his new guise as Abatementyogin and made into yet another copy of Overview of gun laws by nation. The point of the article is what countries have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, not just to repeat a review of gun laws by nation. Is anyone interested in making sure this article is about constitutional right to keep and bear arms? The current state of the article is just stupid duplication of Overview of gun laws by nation. 99.236.244.35 (talk)

The article should be kept separate as it is as the Right to keep and bear arms, but duplication of legal gun laws by nations could be transferred to the other article and superfluities deleted. It is essential to preserve the theories separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.90.161 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

How many countries have the right to keep and bear arms actually enshrined in their constitution? Serious question. I only know of one. And I'm sure we articles covering that already. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In the US the sole cause of the "The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution" (weapon bearing rights) was the fear that the President could become a monarch (they didn't like the absolute authority of King George and that stuck but generalized)

• see: Anti-Federalism (but fear against absolute authority wasn't restricted among antifederalists)

It's a lie that the amendment was written about:

1. Native Americans. Animals had more value and were more respected. You didn't need specfic legal permission to kill Indians and society did care for their death.
2. Englishmen or other invaders. That's a joke. You don't need specific laws to kill enemies and invaders. Also if the enemy conquers a region and imposes new laws, if you believe in your own country and you are a fighter, the laws of the enemy are illegitimate. Also they don't recognize your laws in their conquered ground - you just kill them in battle. No law can change that.

Why the sole reason for arm-bearing is the old fear of absolute authority within your own state? Because you support your state and adhere to its laws. Your own country or state isn't the enemy, and when its authorities infringe your rights, there is no legal way to both respect it and stop the infringement of power if the head of state acts monarchically.

Many Americans (and not only) know very well the biases, but don't understand their cause. For example Hebrews in Medieval Christian Europe were called Christ-killers and god-killers (in some nations). There are plenty of texts with these terms. There are records of Christians burning the houses and killing Jews (medieval Germany, etc). Watch DW medieval documentary on that, but Christian medieval crimes against Jews happened in many countries. Also at medieval times banking was deemed unethical. Initially Christians in some regions weren't allowed to be bankers being the sons of the true god. That law changed and anyone could become a banker. But people never forgot that initial injustice. Also the Bible itself is biased in the New Testament against the Jews, and most Christians took very seriously the Bible. Thus the New Testament is the first Christian biased record against the Jews.

Some Americans are extremely strict on denying written and well attested facts. Old facts and early facts which prove how the historical biases evolved. They never present older facts, only newer conspiracy theories when the biases were deeply established.

Conspiracy theories maintain the biases. Their true historical evolution exposes them, and cannot be accepted because is the core component of many ideologies. Removing or analysing the biases is suicidal for many groups. (see: perestroika, the biases are the system; if you overanalyze them, the fallacious system gets exposed and collapses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4115:29C:2056:45E4:8195:48A0 (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)