5 ms·
Not the main purpose, just one purpose. The right to arms was part of English common-law (English Bill of Rights of 1689) and in 1689 the right was claimed to
by purpled_haze 11y ago
Not the main purpose, just one purpose.
The right to arms was part of English common-law (English Bill of Rights of 1689) and in 1689 the right was claimed to be a reinstatement of "ancient rights" originally granted by James II. Fear of a slave revolt was not the primary reason for this right in either time.
In U.S. Supreme Court's D.C. vs Heller (2008) decision ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller ), the court claimed that historically the right to bear arms was:
'"clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... )
In The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), the history and reason for the 2nd amendment was summarized ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller ):
> "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]
If the primary reason for the right to keep and bear arms was to guard against slave revolt, it would have been more central to the discussion. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court was focused on whether or not it was an individual right to self-defense, and they determined it was. While protecting oneself from a slave revolt could be one case of self-protection it was by no means the primary reason.