Is there a right to bear arms? Weapons regulation in Italy, the E.U., and the U.S.A. and its implications on global constitutional law

The possession and carrying of arms do not constitute a right in the Italian legal system, but rather the exception to a general ban. This approach is further per- petuated through criminal law sanctions, as confirmed by Constitutional Court case law on the matter. Thus, firearms licensing operates with considerable limitations. Fur- thermore, during the past thirty years, the European Union has adopted three direc- tives in this field, gradually tightening requirements in this area. In doing so, the E.U. recently triggered an action of annulment presented by three Member States before the Court of Justice. In contrast, the opposite occurs in the U.S., as keeping and bearing arms is a right the Supreme Court of the United States has held to be enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This right is understood as an individual one, according to a seminal Supreme Court ruling. As illustrated by these wildly divergent approaches, the right to bear arms fosters vibrant discussions on the meaning of law, freedom, and community. Because of this, the purpose of this Paper is not only pro- viding an overview of the existing norms on weapons and their interpretation, but also highlighting the issues that they pose. Is there a right to possess arms? Or is it, instead, a mere freedom? How feasible is it to mitigate the effects of the resulting negative ex- ternalities? How far should lawmakers go? And, finally, what remains of national bor- ders on the transnational stage in this area? In the ‘post-national constitution’ setting, do geographic discrepancies in the protection of personal freedoms ultimately result in their repudiation?