From the Vatican

A second point, which has long been a grave concern for the Holy See, in the framework of criminal justice and crime prevention, is the sale and possession of firearms. This issue is closely related to building peace and is a key component of a truly sustainable economic and social development. Clearly, there is a link between crime and trafficking in firearms that feeds terrorism at national and international levels. A reduction in the availability of firearms will facilitate the establishment of peace and security. It will also contribute to channel money spent on trafficking weapons, into programmes for development.

INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE AT THE ELEVENTH UNITED NATIONS CONGRESS ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE (BANGKOK, 18-25 APRIL 2005)

Now, I am pretty sure that the Vatican didn't directly weigh in on the issue of DC v. Heller, but we have the above concern expressed by the them regarding crime prevention. Now, the "Conservative" block of the Justices (CJ Roberts, JJ Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito) are all Catholics and should keep in mind that this is an issue that the Church has expressed concern. I was hoping to find a way to contact the Pope and ask for some sort of comment on this case.

I would be pretty certain that he would side with Washington, DC in its desire to control firearms within its jurisdiction. I can't be certain to what extent the Church would go in its opinion. I found this article from the bishop of the Diocese of Juneau, Alaska about Catholicism and gun control. Of course, the Church points out that gun control is not a panacea, but only a part of a project which requires other social matters.

The "right" of self-defence is not a part of the Constitution and in no way should be part of the constitution. To say one has a right of first recourse to deadly force flies in the face of how the concept of self-defence was understood at the time of the Constitution:

THE defence of one's self, or the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant. In these cafes, if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force; and the breach of the peace, which happens, is chargeable upon him only who began the affrayd . For the law, in this case, respects the passions of the human mind; and (when external violence is offered to a man himself, or those to whom he bears a near connection) makes it lawful in him to do himself that immediate justice, to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. It considers that the future process of law is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied with force; since it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of reapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another. Self-defence therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away be the law of society. In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defence and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor.

Blacktone's Commentaries on the Law of England, PRIVATE WRONGS, BOOK III., Ch. 1

OK, it is well settled that the law of self-defence only allows the minimum of force allowed to stop the threat. Any excessive force (e.g., deadly force) can turn the defender in to an aggressor.

Now, I am looking at the St. George Tucker quote and wondering if it has been taken out of context and is actually a gloss on the Blackstone's piece on British Bill of Rights, NOT the US Bill of Rights. That would be the problem with taking quotes out of context, which I can imagine most people quoting this are doing. In fact, I think quite a bit of the "Scholarship" is people doing term searches and then just using the quote without concern of meaning or context (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856)). There are copies of Tucker's commentaries on line:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/tucker/index.html
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

I was able to find the whole gloss at Constitution.org, but it was chopped up so much that it was rather worthless. Indeed, it appeared to be more of a gloss on the British Bill of Rights. Compare and Contrast the British Bill of Rights to that of The US Bill of Rights seemed to have been a theme in the Heller arguments of which the advocates did a lousy job. As I said before, I am not sure what these people had been doing with their time.

Anyway, both Blackstone and St. George Tucker are rather long works which I doubt that many people have plowed through. Most of the time, Tucker is just updating Blackstone and trying to make it applicable to the US experience, especially post-rebellion. Given that the only print copy of Tucker costs US$450, I don't see too many people actually buying a copy and reading it! And given the cite for the Tucker quote: St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300, he may actually be discussing the British Bill of Rights. I would also add that Tucker was not a party to the Constitutional debates, which only means that this is his opinion and definitely not legal authority regarding the Second Amendment.

On the other hand, I am really not here to discuss Blackstone, Tucker, or the "right of self-defence" which is not a Constitutional concept, but that the Vatican has expressed an opinion that firearms should be regulated. The concept of Self-defence has no requirement that firearms be made available. In fact, it has the requirement that only the minimum of force needed to stop the threat is used. The Catholic church talks about respecting life and the Constitution says that life cannot deprived without due process of law. To constitutionally sanction deadly force in self-defence flies in front of all that is proper.

There is no reason to place the "right of self-defence" within the Constitution. On the other hand, there are more than enough reasons to ensure that legislatures can regulate firearms without having to fear being second guessed by the court system.