Need Help! The Constitutional Basis for the right of Self Defense

[Werewolf]

I'm currently in a discussion with a European about inalienable vs codified rights. He contends that the right of individual self defense not being codified in the constitution means that we only have that right if the government gives it to us. The Bill of Rights which enumerates which rights the government cannot infringe upon and in fact must protect leaves out the right of self defense. I am of a mind that the the right to self defense does not require codification but that will get me no where and is just an opinion anyway (even if one widly held).

We all know here that the the right of self defense is inalienable - we have it whether or not the constitution enumerates it or not.

What I'd like to know is there any constitutional foundation for allowing US citizens to defend their individual selves.

Sorry guys but I don't see it. Even though I agree that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right it appears that that right exists to provide for the defense of the collective and not the individual.

One can extrapolate the right to self defense from the Declaration of Independence but that document has no legal standing as a source of law in the US.

So what is the constitutional foundation for the right to individual self defense?

Any help along these lines with cites if possible would be greatly appreciated because right now I can't find any constitutional justification for individual self defense being a right.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The Constitution is about how the government functions and how it interacts with the citizens. It was never the purpose of the Constitution to be the complete list of everything you are allowed to legally do. It merely limits what the government can do to you.

The laws covering self-defense were then written by the federal and state governments. No one in the 1700s would have even remotely considered that at some point, someone would question the legality of a person defending themself when attacked.

IMO, self-defense is an instinct both in humans and animals. Only with intense indoctrination is that instinct removed. It takes years of brainwashing to create sheeple.

 

[StLGlocker]

He contends that the right of individual self defense not being codified in the constitution means that we only have that right if the government gives it to us.

Sounds to me like you're wasting your time even having the discussion. Someone so completely dependent on others is blind, deaf and dumb until his betters tell him otherwise. He might as well be a dog, with the State as his master.

 

[benewton]

I'm slowly learning about the entire constitutional argument, though, being human, I've always known that I've got to take care of myself. Too, I'm a whole lot better at PIC 16C84 circuit designs...

Our Constitution does NOT grant rights: it restrains the federal government from "ever" stepping on ours. While I forget the ammendment, probably 10, though, it says that any rights not specifically listed and granted to them, are forbidden to the feds.

Too, rights are just that: how can they be either granted or forbidden? By anyone, or any group?

The eurotrash idea that you need permission from the government to be alive might be PC, and it might even, after a fashion, work there. But this country is, to me at least, a group of individuals working toward a common goal, by choice, rather than compulsion.

And to be an individual, you must have the tools you need to survive, or you won't for very long,


Please don't ask me to repeat this on 4/15, since I tend to have a very different view of the group to goals gig....

 

[Mike Irwin]

Not codified in the Constitution...

Excuse me?

The First, Third, Fifth, and other Amendments have all been held to address the right of the INDIVIDUAL, not the collective corpus.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, has held, in writing, that the Second Amendment is an individual, not collective, right.

The writings of the Founders and Framers also leave absolutely no doubt as to what was in their minds with regards to the individual possession of firearms by citizens.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I'm slightly confused on the European's question.

Does he agree the 2A protects the right of the individual to own firearms, but since the constitution does not specifically say if Joe Blow tries to dismember you with an axe, you cannot legally defend yourself?

OR

Is he trying to argue that the 2A does not apply to individuals and based on that and with no other direct reference to self defense, a person cannot legally defend themself?

 

[Delmar]

The Euro seems to be confused between the devine right of kings vs We, the People. Can't blame him-we have a lot of homegrown Americans in the same dilemma!

 

[geekWithA.45]

One of the great judges said something to the effect that the two documents (DOI & Const) are inseparably bound, and that the Const must always be read "in the light of the DOI."

The right to defend yourself is Self Evident.

If it's not, you deny your own right to continue existing in the face of opposition.

I also offer this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Justice cannot exist if you don't have the right to exist.
Tranquility cannot exist if you don't have the right to exist.
The Blessings of Liberty cannot exist if you don't have the right to exist.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

Living with Europeans, I know how you feel.

I try and explain to them that rights do not come from Man; rights are inherent. Every living creature has them.

A cat does not need to be 'granted' the right to self defence by the government. A cat will use every weapon at its disposal to stay alive. It will tear and rip at its enemies with its teeth and claws.

A chimp does not need to be 'allowed' to defend itself by law before it can do so. It will use its great natural strength, its teeth, sticks, stones, anything it can to preserve its existence.

A human does not need another human to grant it permission before it can exercise the inherent right to exist. Humans have no sharp teeth, no claws, little strength, but we can create and use weapons of our own to make up for any deficiencies in our natural form.

Without weapons; without stick, knife and gun humans are defenceless. We change from predators to prey, from predator killers to predator food.

The right to preserve your existence is a God given one. It is the first law of nature. It is in our very DNA.

 

[Werewolf]

Mike Irwin said:

Not codified in the Constitution...

Excuse me?

The First, Third, Fifth, and other Amendments have all been held to address the right of the INDIVIDUAL, not the collective corpus.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, has held, in writing, that the Second Amendment is an individual, not collective, right.

The writings of the Founders and Framers also leave absolutely no doubt as to what was in their minds with regards to the individual possession of firearms by citizens.

Agree 100% but that's not the point. I did not say that the 2A was a collective right. In fact I stated that it is an individual right. The point is that nowhere in the constitution or the Bill of Rights is the right to individual self defense codified thus from the Euro's point of view it is not a right.

I cannot find anything in the constitution that codifies the right to personal self defense.

Even though I believe that the RKBA is an individual right if you read it it is very easily interpreted to mean that the right to individually bear arms is a right to bear arms in the defense of the collective and not in defense of the individual. That's not a correct interpretation IMO but it is one that could easily be made.

 

[Graystar]

Look at the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


And how about these words from the US Supreme Court

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. "

This is because the Bill of Rights simply recognizes rights. It does not create them. We are born free, and each person has the right to self-determination.

If you say that you have no rights other than what a government grants, then you are effectively a slave. If your discussion buddy wants to submit himself to slavery, that's fine by me. Just don't try to take my gun away.

 

[Tamara]

He contends that the right of individual self defense not being codified in the constitution means that we only have that right if the government gives it to us.

Then he doesn't understand the Constitution at all. The Constitution doesn't grant anything to you and I; it's a list of things that you and I allow the government to do.

Ask him what he thinks of the Ninth Amendment.

In many countries, that which is not specifically allowed is forbidden. The point of the Constitution is that anything it doesn't specifically allow the government to do is forbidden... to the government.

 

[Werewolf]

The 9th Amendment - that's the one. Thanks!

 

[agricola]

If it helps, the "right to self defence" is nowhere enshrined in written law (at least in the UK), aside from "common law" (that is (and this is a crude definition) the body of legal history of this country), and probably stems from Saxon, and possibly Roman, predecessors.

Since your legal history pre-rebellion is ours, this means that our principles of common law would have applied to the Framers and so they wouldnt have even considered writing down something that already was a fundamental part of the state - they might as well have made the First Amendment say "and the Earth shall revolve around the Sun".

Since the right to self defence is pretty much universal it seems as if you might be getting trolled.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

Since the right to self defence is pretty much universal it seems as if you might be getting trolled.

I don't think so. There are many people who believe that the government grants rights and that they are not inherent. People in the UK often talk about their "right to free healthcare" when in fact, no right exists. In the European Constitution I saw a 'right to strike' section, when in fact, there is only the government granted privilege to strike.

In the UK, like in many European countries, the government has tried (and largely succeeded) in turning the right to self defence into a privilege, that only police and a handful of others are granted.

To many, self defence is simply inexcusable violence, and that we as a species are somehow 'above it'. Some people would rather see a women raped and murdered, than see that woman defend herself with a knife or gun.

 

[gundam007]

its not in the constitution, but the rights of LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (emphasis is mine) are the reason for the independence of this nation... and are inalienable rights of all those who live in it

 

[deanf]

It's like this:

The Constitution is a list of powers that we have delegated to the government, and also a list of powers that we have specifically excluded from the government.

The government may not legislate except within the scope of the limited and sharply defined powers. It matters not if you recognize self-defense as a right. The government of the United Stated simply has no power to regulate it.

 

[Old Fuff]

Many of out state constitutions contain amendments that say a person has the right to bear arms for self-defense. Missouri and Arizona come to mind. You can quote these to make your point, in addition to other arguments.

This is from Missouri:

Missouri State Constitution:

Article I, Section 23: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned, but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

 

[Standing Wolf]

Sounds to me like you're wasting your time even having the discussion. Someone so completely dependent on others is blind, deaf and dumb until his betters tell him otherwise. He might as well be a dog, with the State as his master.

Yep. It's impossible to tell some people rights antecede government.

 

[CasualShooter]

From the Declaration of Independence:

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

Reinforced by the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

And if it is self-evident that Life is an unalienable Right, then so, by inference, is the Right to Defend It.

 

[jimpeel]

Make that "inalienable vs conferred rights".

 

[jimpeel]

Werewolf

I would have sent you an outline on the Second Amendment, from the Fyrds, through the Assize of Arms, Statute of Winchester, Statute of Northampton, Train Bands, English Bill of Rights (1689) , Blackstone, and all of the American State's Constitutional reiterations of the right to arms if you were disposed to post your e-mail addy.

If you would like a copy, send me an e-mail with the word "2amend.doc" in the subject line.

If anyone else would be interested in this file, send me an e-mail with the word "2amend.doc" in the subject line. That way I will know you are from here. I don't respond to, or even open, e-mail I don't know the source.

 

[agricola]

mr. bombastic,

sorry, but you are talking nonsense, and I doubt you'd find ten rational people in the UK who would agree with you (note: "rational" people by definition doesnt include the LP loons)

 

[cordex]

sorry, but you are talking nonsense, and I doubt you'd find ten rational people in the UK who would agree with you (note: "rational" people by definition doesnt include the LP loons)

agricola,
When you define "rational" as only those who agree with you, it quickly becomes apparent that only "irrational" people can disagree.

As you have explained many times before, self defense is entirely legal in UK. However, preparing to defend yourself (through carrying a weapon of any sort) is illegal. Thus, there is a de facto restriction on self-defense, and the unintended consequence of banning self-defense for those unable to engage in hand-to-hand (or hand-to-weapon) combat.

 

[agricola]

cordex,

there is always a restriction on self-defence of some sort or another, even in the US.

besides he said "To many, self defence is simply inexcusable violence, and that we as a species are somehow 'above it'. Some people would rather see a women raped and murdered, than see that woman defend herself with a knife or gun.", which is to what i was referring to.

who would think "self defence" was inexcusable violence?