With the strict gun control implemented in Mexico I did not realize the Mexican Constitution has a right to bear arms clause:
The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have a right to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of arms prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.
I would be willing to bet the Brady Campaign would almost be willing to accept a “guaranteed” right “protected” thusly. The VPC wouldn’t of course. But giving the Brady Campaign a reason to disband would be appealing.
But I’m inclined to go with the “shall not be infringed” version and have the Brady Campaign disband because we have accomplished all our goals in the U.S. and have moved on to protecting the right of people to keep and bear arms in other countries.
Yeah, right.
Yeah a lot of people don’t know about article #10 of the Mexican Constitution, including my neighbor from … Mexico! Funny thing about that, my Uncle and Aunt own a townhouse down in Mexico, and most of the people there have a permit to carry. Plenty of them carry 1911’s in 38 Super.
I knew that, but I’m not just into provoking people (hopefully to think, but w/e)–I studied Spanish for several years, mostly for fun (I majored in science for money, then got a master’s degree in it. Ha-ha, joke’s on me. Stupid economy.) & have seriously considered expatriating. Trouble is, taking the toys with me is more than a bit problematic. Having the option to carry some of them is even more so. Guess “free” America is it, then.
The English Bill of Rights (we got the idea from them) predates the U.S., and also guarantees the right to keep and bear arms “as allowed by law”. The “Protestant” bit in there is for emphasis, not a restriction. Most European countries have a long history of religious strife dating back to the Reformation. James II (the last Catholic king of England) had tried to disarm the Protestants which, along with other abuses of power, convinced a set of Protestant noblemen to invite William of Orange from Holland to lead an army to oust him. The Bill of Rights was in part a reaction to this atrocity, and its acceptance was a condition of making William king. [most people don’t know this, but the king (or queen) can withold royal assent to an act of Parliament. This power is almost never used, but technically it still exists.] As it turned out, James ran away to France rather than attempting to fight.
The trouble is that the weasel words, coupled with the tendency of the courts over there to consider more recent acts of Parliament as being meant to supersede older laws that they might contradict (our judicial review systems generally works the opposite way, largely because we actually have a written Constitution) have meant the near-total undoing of the original intent of this law.
By analogy, then (which is a way of saying I’m too lazy to do the rest of the research right now), I suspect that the weasel words in the Mexican constitution were never meant to be taken that way, but unfortunately have–over time, which has been filled with a rather tumultuous history–been allowed to become an all-but-total prohibition.
BTW this is the so-called “Glorious Revolution” because no shots had to be fired.
Translation;
“The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have a right to arms in their homes, until government says otherwise.”
“The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have a right to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of arms prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard…”
I wondered what the weasel words would be.
It is my understanding that both the Weimar and Soviet constitutions had all the same protections of the individual as the US constitution except each included words to the effect of “Except insofar as the interests of justice require . . .”.
And who knew? EVERY time someone wanted to exercise one of those rights, the interests of justice required otherwise.
Publius. I understand that William of Orange seized his opportunity and then Parliament rewrote history to imply that they invited him over — Is this true or is this a misstatement.
It’s very complicated and very political and also has religious stuff thrown in (as is all European history from this era), and sort of grew in over several years.
When he married Mary Stuart (1677), he established himself as a potential claimant for the throne, if James were thrown out for being Catholic. He was probably trying to use this for leverage against the French, who were at war with Holland. He tried to negotiate with James II to go Protestant, which would have shifted the balance of power against the French, but that was a no go and things got sour. Then James’ wife got pregnant (it turned out to be a boy who would of course claim the throne), so William tried to curry favor with the English Protestants by publishing an open letter denouncing James’ religious policies.
At this point, several English politicians started negotiating with him about invasion. It’s hard to say who had the idea first, but the timing was right (1688) because France was busy fighting in Germany and Italy, so they were unable to interfere. He started gathering forces, but expressed reluctance to push his claim without an invitation because he didn’t think the English people would take too well to being governed by a foreigner. Seven prominent politicians, mostly noblemen, including the Bishop of London, signed such a letter, now known as the Invitation to William, also promising military support from themselves and their allies within the country.
I suppose what you say is possible, but I’ve never run across that interpretation before.
A number of letters, some written in invisible ink, were sent back and forth. I don’t know how many of the originals are extant. Even if they are, it seems unlikely that they could be dated accurately enough to determine whether they were from immediately before these events, or concocted immediately thereafter.