Is Gun Ownership a Right? | 5 Minute Video
What does the Second Amendment say? Is gun ownership a right for all Americans? Or just for a small militia? Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, explains what the Founding Fathers intended.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Have you taken the pledge for school choice? Click here! http://www.schoolchoicenow.com
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they’re released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
Does an American citizen have a Constitutional right to own a gun?
Here’s what the Second Amendment says: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now, it once seemed to me like that language only protected state militias and not individuals. Indeed, this is the view held by the four dissenting Supreme Court justices in the 2008 case of District of Columbia versus Heller, a landmark case dealing with gun ownership.
But the more research I did, the more I came to realize that my initial view was mistaken and that the Founders were, in fact, securing an individual right. The five justices who voted to affirm the right to own a gun in DC versus Heller had, indeed, made the correct decision.
Let’s look at the amendment one more time.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
We first need to focus on the phrase “the right of the people.” Note that the people are the only ones whose right is secured here, not the militia or a state government. This phrase “the right of the people” comes up a few times in the Constitution. For example, the First Amendment refers to “The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government.” And the Fourth Amendment secures “The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Why, then, if the authors of the Constitution felt so strongly about “the right of the people” to own guns, did they include language about “a well-regulated militia”?
These opening words of the amendment might be called a “justification clause.” Such clauses are used to help explain why a right is being secured. But it’s the operative clause that explains what right is being secured. In this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And what was the word ‘militia’ understood to mean at the time?
Well, the Militia Act of 1792 defined “militia” to mean all white males 18 to 45. Today, of course, “militia” would include women and people of all races, but it was clearly not a reference to a small, National Guard-type group.
And what about the part of the amendment that says a militia is necessary “to the security of a free State”? What, the opponents of personal gun ownership ask, does a personal right of gun ownership have to do with that?
Again, historical context is key. In the 1790s, the phrase “free State” wasn’t used to mean an individual state like New York or Rhode Island. Rather, it meant what we’d call today a “free country”—a nation free of despotism. A “free State” is what the Framers wanted America to be. They saw an armed citizenry as, in part, a hedge against tyranny. Citizens who own weapons can protect themselves, prevent tyrants from seizing power, and protect the nation from foreign enemies.
This does not mean, though, that this right is unlimited. Free speech, for example, has long been subject to some narrow and reasonable regulations. But severe restrictions on owning a gun, like severe restrictions on free speech, would violate the Second Amendment as the Founders understood it.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/gun-ownership-right
source
Even if, somehow, the 2nd Amendment is itself amended, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will and has always existed. It's not a right provided by any government or document. The only way that right can legitimately be restricted / infringed is through the voice of The People. The People accomplish that through the power and authority they have given to the government in the judicial branch.
The US Constitution simply lays out the framework of what the US Government is allowed to do and how to do it by describing how it's constructed. If something isn't listed in there, the government isn't supposed to do it. The Bill of Rights are those exceptional restrictions on the government that those who were forming the union and codifying the requirements decided should be mentioned explicitly so those who perform the duties of government could have a short list of some of the things they're restricted from doing and have no excuses.
Why not just amend the Constitution so it says "individual?". "People" and "militia" have different connotations.
What was happening when the second amendment was written. We were at war with our own government, we were British subjects.
It was written to give the people the power to defend themselves from their own government.
People are the milita, and the milita is the people ! The government can't infringe on either ! Every community should have a citizen milita.
We have a NATURAL right to own a gun. The Constitution does not confer it. The Constitution is to protect it by conferring no right to infringe on it.
Why didn’t they put it under the unalienable rights then?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Militias, or "military organization of citizens with limited military training" are no longer necessary, so no "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Yes
국민 개개인이 총기 소지를 할 권리가 있는지 논하지 않고도 평화로울 수 있는 나라들이 지구 반대편에 얼마든지 있는데.. 안타깝네요
Is this really a ?
History Lesson: The 2nd Amendment was and is still racist. It was forced into the Constitution by Southern slave owners (Madison and the like) to protect state "militias" from being Federalized and their guns confiscated. State militias were used to catch or repress runaway or rebellious slaves. Heller was based on Scalia'a originalist interpretation as to the intent of the framers. He and Uncle Thomas were wrong in because the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect slave owners with state militias, and not an individual's right to own guns. By the way, PragerU is not a university; it is a joke.
WELL REGULATED
Im gonma throw out a hot take here looks at all the laws passed in places like new york and california that havent been struck down the second amendment doesnt secure shit
The reason the 2nd amendment secures the rite of the people because a militia is necessary is because the definition of militia is "any able bodied citizen of fighting age". A militia is a unit made up of civilians that exists outside the traditional military or government control and in american tradition that militia uses weapons they owned prior to the conflict in question.
That definition hasent changed by the way.
Your right to bear arms is only guaranteed when you belong to a well regulated militia (period). Under the current interpretation, anyone should be able to DEMAND a free firearm issued to them by the government because it is a right to own one. If you can't afford one, but want one – you are being denied your rights. Historically, the militia was the "community under arms": all able-bodied "free" men were obligated to serve. Militias often supplied arms to those who could not afford them. If you have a right to free speech – you do not have to purchase anything to exercise that right – yet for firearms, the right to bear arms "is not absolute"🤣. This is how perverse the 2nd amendment (as interpreted) really is. Simply requiring some level of service in order to keep and bear arms would eliminate a LOT of crime, but we here in America like our unlimited access to toys (without having to make any sacrifice to own them). At the same time, we deny ownership to those under financial hardship. Again, this may sound like a joke – but think about how the law is interpreted now – you are a militia of one and you have a right to keep and bear arms.
To answer this dumb question, yes it is a right allowed by our constitution!!!!
It is but it really shouldn't be.
The same people that want to disarm you are the same people that let criminals out of prison, defund the police, and tell us by 2030 we will own nothing and eat bugs. I’ll keep mine.
2 questions, if the 2nd isnt absolute and can be regulated then why does it say "shall not be infringed", and wouldn't a constitional amendment also be considered an infringement?
No one has ever been able to answer this for me.
Exactly how it whas written
This video doesn't go into the "well regulated" part. Gun-control proponents often claim "well regulated" meant back then what it means today: "well restricted," "well supervised" or "well controlled." Why would the amendment state the right to bear arms shall be both well restricted and not infringed? I don't know, it makes no sense, but that's the belief.
What "well regulated" actually meant back in the day was "well prepared," "well suited" or "well trained." You can't have a well prepared militia, ready to fight at a moment's notice, if no one has a gun or has ever held one before. The militia (which is made up of regular people, not the military or police) needs to be readily and adequately armed and familiar with their tools. That minimum level of preparedness is what's necessary to the security of a free state. It's why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Ya and you dont get to be the one to say, not prager U, or the founding fathers. The right is God given, and only recognized by the founding fathers. We are not subjects.
I don’t even need to watch the video to know the answer is yes. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
I can’t imagine this guy keeps his job at UCLA after this, but he’s absolutely right! 😆👍
If there's is an armed burglar that knows which families are armed in their homes and which ones are not, Who do you think the armed burglar will choose to rob?
George Washington: Yo, our country is threatened by like four different world super powers. France and England, yah. So maybe we should allow our citizens rifles that fire once every two minutes. This will be our second amendment.
People today: But the founding fathers said I could own a machine gun even in one of the most powerful countries in the world!
At the time of our founding, there were no limitations, reasonable or otherwise, on an individual's God-given right to own arms.
Private citizens owned cannons (artillery) and privateers (warships).
The British were, in fact, on their way to Lexington and Concord to seize cannons and powder from the colonials when the whole fight started.
We have a right to own bazookas, howitzers, tanks and warplanes.
A reasonable line might be drawn at Strategic weapons, as these have no use in an infantry fight.
The NFA and GCA are both unconstututional.
Shall not be INFRINGED means the goverment can not prevent FELONS FROM OWNING GUNS
Come and vacation in Canada. We'll give you a very attractive currency exchange rate and we promise not to shoot you. The USA can't offer either one of those.
You didn’t do your due diligence.
There is extra information in the constitution related to the second amendment.
Article 1, section 8, clauses 15 and 16.
It is all about the militia and the government providing the arms, the officers, and the organization of the militia.
Not one mention on an individual owning firearms.
"Does an american citizen have a constitutional right to own a gun?"
YES. The end.
No Professor Eugene. You are very wrong. The 2nd amendment is an unqualified command. There are no restrictions. The ONLY remedy our founders provided was a constitutional amendment. Any other laws or judge's rulings are not constitutional, period. I mean no offense but, it's people like you and others who are the problem. You "think you know" so much but fail to understand the truth. I understand precedent and Stare Decisis. But when judges at any level rule inappropriately, it should not count as constitutional. It is, in effect, an illegal or unlawful ruling. There should be no qualifiers on the 1st Amendment either. Not without using the process to amend the constitution. EVERYTHING else is unconstitutional! It really is, and should be, this simple!
Why would you give people who can’t follow the law the right to own a gun???
Citizens need to arm themselves, as the police cannot be on every corner.
its an interesting dichotomy of liberal thinking when they say that the militia has to be actually regulated by the government because people with guns are too dangerous. They propose enlisting in it, getting training, etc.
So what they are proposing are the very people they think are dangerous, the people with guns, and now they want to give them advanced military and tactical training while being the only citizens who are allowed to own said guns. soooo, you want to make the people you think are bad into an absolutely deadly force that rivals our military? alright, suits me. just dont come crying when that implies that we can now have tanks and jets
I have a question about the 2nd amendment, or shall I say a laws that takes peoples 2nd amendment away. How is it possible that someone can get a restraining order and then get their 2nd amendment taken away? Or even a felon, like don't they still have rights? I have always wondered this, because I thought no law could ever over rule our constitution rights. Does it not go 1 constitution 2. Law. 3 policy? Ty for your time.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Anyone telling you otherwise wants to make you a serf