The Right to Bear Arms as a Human Right or a Threat to Public Security? An Analysis from the Perspective of Natural Rights Theory

Abstract

The right to bear arms remains one of the most controversial issues at the intersection of natural rights, human rights, public security, and state authority. The central question is whether access to arms can be regarded as an independent human right or whether it should be understood merely as an instrumental entitlement derived from more fundamental rights, particularly the rights to life, self-preservation, personal security, and self-defense. This study adopts a descriptive-analytical and philosophical-legal approach to examine the normative foundations of the right to arms and the legitimacy of state restrictions imposed in the interest of public security. The analysis demonstrates that natural-rights theory provides a strong basis for recognizing the individual's inherent right to defend life and bodily integrity. However, this foundation does not necessarily establish an absolute or autonomous right to possess, carry, or use weapons. Rather, access to arms is more appropriately conceptualized as a derivative right whose legitimacy depends on its functional relationship with lawful self-defense. The study further argues that the exercise of this derivative right is necessarily constrained by the equal natural rights of others, particularly their rights to life and security. Consequently, state regulation of weapons may be justified where it pursues legitimate public-security objectives and satisfies the requirements of legality, suitability, necessity, and proportionality. Measures such as licensing, competence requirements, safe-storage obligations, restrictions on unauthorized transfers, and limitations on particularly dangerous weapons may therefore be compatible with natural-rights principles. The study concludes that the appropriate legal model is neither unrestricted private armament nor categorical prohibition, but regulated defensive autonomy. Under this model, individuals retain a meaningful capacity for lawful self-defense while the state remains authorized and obligated to prevent unreasonable risks arising from weapon possession and proliferation.