[TaePo]

I have a problem with the wording in the PA Constitution, section 21.

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the STATE shall not be questioned.”

My main concern is with the use of the conjunction AND.

By using AND, the logic indicates that the defense of oneself and the STATE must be inclusive and never mutually exclusive. Both conditions must be met.

In defending against criminal activity, one can argue that the individual is in effect indirectly defending the State. By stopping the criminal activity where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, we are preventing further crimes.

A similar argument can be made for cases of defending the home state against foreign or domestic troops that are attempting to capture and control the state government by force of arms or subterfuge.

However, a final case would regard a lawfully elected state government that had gone rogue. The tricky part would be how the citizens would decide where the proverbial last straw lay, and when to begin taking steps to thwart a rogue regime.

We may feel the last case least likely but the problem is, if it should ever happen, the quoted section would not provide relief as the defense of the individual would be exclusive to that of the current State government.

In light of this, would not the conjunction OR be more appropriate?

““The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves or the STATE shall not be questioned.”

If anyone has knowledge or links to the language and adoption of this section, I would like to see that as well.

What do you think?