GUN RIGHTS

The right to keep and bear arms fundamentally is the
assertion that people, either individually or collectively
as a militia, have a personal right to possess weapons.
Often, but not always, the arms at the forefront of the
conversation are firearms, though other kinds of
weapons are involved as well. Debates about the right
to keep and bear arms also usually involve issues such
as the right of individuals to defend themselves, their
families and their property as well as issues such as the
right to protect oneself even against one's own
government.
United States vs. United Kingdom
Although much of the history of the laws in the United
States have their basis in English common law, the
United States and the United Kingdom have very
different approaches to the issue of the right to keep
and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is
recognized in the United States Bill of Rights and has
been enacted as the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution. In contrast, in the United Kingdom,
neither English law nor Scottish law discusses the right
to bear and keep arms. Although they may carry pepper
spray or a side baton, even police officers in Great
Britain do not routinely carry firearms. Further, the
Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibited individuals from
carrying offensive weapons, such as firearms and
knives, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Moreover, the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1997
effectively banned in Great Britain the private possession
of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting
purposes.
Unlike the United Kingdom, which has taken a relatively
restrictive approach to the possession of arms, the
United States has taken a more lenient approach. In the
United States, three models have evolved regarding the
interpretation of the meaning of the right to bear and
keep arms as delineated in the Second Amendment.
Proponents of the first model, sometimes referred to as
the collective model, focus on the reference to a militia
in the preamble to the Second Amendment and argue
that the intent of the Second Amendment is to authorize
states to have a militia. Proponents of the second
model, sometimes referred to as the modified collective
model, contend that the right to bear and keep arms is
a right that is limited to individuals who are actively a
part of a militia in accordance with the regulations of
the militia. The third model, which is sometimes referred
to as the individual rights model, holds that the intent of
the Second Amendment is to ensure that individuals
have the right to own and possess firearms.
The third model has given rise to much debate about
whether the right of an individual to own and possess
firearms is unlimited or subject to the imposition of
reasonable limitations. Even among those who believe
the right to bear and keep arms is subject to limitation,
debate rages on about who may impose the limitations.
Should the regulation of firearms be exercised by the
federal government? Or should firearms regulation be
controlled by the individual states? Currently, in the
United States, each of the 50 states regulates firearms
within their own jurisdictions and in accordance with
their own regulations. Debate about the right to keep
and bear arms continues between those who desire
stricter control of firearms and those who believe any
control is unconstitutional.