The Inherent Right to Self-Defense: Liability for Disarmament
The right to defend oneself is not a recent invention, nor is it a conditional grant from governments or institutions. It is a principle that transcends civilizations, religions, and legal systems. It is encoded in human nature, born from the simple reality that life is valuable, and preservation of that life is an intrinsic duty. Self-defense is not merely a legal concept; it is a moral imperative.
History is rife with examples of societies recognizing the necessity of self-defense. Legal codes from ancient history, such as Hammurabi (circa 1754 BCE), provided clear allowances for individuals to defend themselves and their property. In Jewish law, the Talmud teaches, "If someone comes to kill you, rise early and kill him first." Roman law acknowledged the necessity of self-defense, codifying it in the Lex Julia de Vi Publica et Privata. The English Common Law tradition, from which modern American law derives, held that individuals had both a right and a duty to defend themselves against unlawful aggression.
The Founding Fathers of the United States understood that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural extension of the right to self-defense. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not an arbitrary privilege conferred upon citizens; it was a recognition of an inherent right—one that preexisted the state itself. The ability to defend oneself was understood not only as a right but as a safeguard against tyranny, ensuring that no government or ruling class could render its people defenseless.
Self-Defense as an Extension of Autonomy and Free Will
At the core of human existence is autonomy—the ability to make choices, take action, and navigate life on one's terms. This autonomy, however, is meaningless without the ability to preserve one’s own existence. If an individual has the right to live, then they must, by logical extension, have the right to defend that life against those who would take it away.
Denying someone the right to self-defense is, in essence, an assertion that their life is not truly theirs to protect. It implies that their safety is contingent upon external forces—whether law enforcement, private security, or societal goodwill—none of which can be guaranteed in a moment of crisis. The notion that self-defense is a privilege, rather than a right, suggests that individuals are subjects rather than sovereign beings. It assumes that people must rely on institutions, rather than their own agency, to secure their survival.
The Modern Erosion of the Right to Self-Defense
Despite its historical and philosophical grounding, the right to self-defense is under relentless attack in modern society. Lawmakers, activists, and corporate interests have steadily eroded this fundamental right under the guise of "public safety" and "crime prevention." Cities enact sweeping gun control measures that make lawful carry a logistical nightmare. Businesses impose blanket "gun-free zone" policies without providing meaningful security measures. Bureaucrats craft regulations that place endless barriers between individuals and their ability to protect themselves.
The justification is always the same: safety. But safety for whom? Certainly not for the law-abiding citizen who is left defenseless against criminals who do not abide by these restrictions. Certainly not for the individual who must traverse dangerous areas without the means to protect themselves. Certainly not for the families who must rely on police response times that, more often than not, arrive too late.
In many cases, these restrictions do not reduce crime—they increase it. Cities which implement by far the most restrictive gun control measures, such as Chicago and Baltimore, consistently rank among the most violent in the nation. Criminals thrive in environments where law-abiding citizens are disarmed because they face little to no resistance. Gun-free zones do not stop crime; they create targets.
The Responsibility of Those Who Restrict Self-Defense
If a city, business, or property owner wishes to restrict an individual’s ability to defend themselves, then they must accept full liability for the consequences of that restriction. They must be held accountable—financially and legally—for any harm that comes to those they have forcibly disarmed.
Consider the legal principle of "assumption of duty." In tort law, when an entity voluntarily assumes responsibility for another's safety, it becomes liable for any failures in that duty. If a business installs a security system but neglects to maintain it, and a crime occurs as a result, that business can be held liable. If a city removes traffic lights from an intersection and accidents skyrocket, it bears responsibility for those accidents. The same logic must apply to self-defense restrictions. If an entity disarms individuals, it assumes responsibility for their safety. If it fails to provide adequate protection, it must be held liable for the consequences.
This is not a radical proposition—it is basic fairness. If you remove my ability to protect myself, then you are responsible for protecting me. If you fail in that responsibility, you must compensate me for the harm I suffer. Anything less is an abdication of moral and legal responsibility.
A Call for Legal and Financial Accountability
The path forward is clear: if a business or municipality insists on restricting self-defense, they must be legally required to back that policy with tangible protections. This means:
Comprehensive Liability Insurance – Any entity that enforces a gun-free policy must carry liability insurance covering all damages—physical, emotional, and financial—that result from criminal violence on their property. This coverage must be substantial, reflecting the potential for catastrophic losses.
Bonding for Immediate Payout – Victims of crime in gun-free zones should not have to endure years of litigation to receive compensation. Any entity that restricts lawful carry must be bonded for immediate payouts in cases where their policies contribute to harm.
Mandatory Security Measures – If an entity wishes to disarm individuals, it must provide an alternative means of protection. This includes armed security personnel, surveillance systems, rapid emergency response capabilities, and physical security measures designed to deter criminal activity.
If these conditions are not met, then the restriction itself is illegitimate. If a business or city does not want to assume the burden of responsibility, it must relinquish its authority to disarm individuals. The choice is simple: accept liability or allow people to defend themselves.
Conclusion
The right to self-defense is non-negotiable. It is not subject to the whims of politicians, corporate executives, or activists. It is a foundational principle of individual liberty, moral law, and personal responsibility. Those who seek to limit this right must be held accountable for the consequences of their restrictions. Otherwise, they have no right to interfere.
To those who attempt to dictate when and how I may protect myself, the message is clear: either take full responsibility for my safety, or get out of my way.