At least in the U.S., with the recent Supreme Court rulings that a person has a natural right to be able to defend themselves (as in bear arms)
Not quite, but very close. This came down to the SCOTUS using the 14th amendment - yes THAT 14th amendment that has been in the news - to assert "equal protection" regardless of what the "States Rights" claims to the contrary were. This was a matter of inclusion of the second amendment and as a federal preemption of state law, and that's what the big change was.
The case - found here -
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf - MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
uses to words "natural right" only once, as follows:
"Lysander Spooner championed the popular aboli-
tionist argument that slavery was inconsistent with con-
stitutional principles, citing as evidence the fact that it
deprived black Americans of the “natural right of all men
‘to keep and bear arms’ for their personal defence,” which
he believed the Constitution “prohibit[ed] both Congress
and the State governments from infringing.” L. Spooner,
The Unconstitutionality of Slavery 98 (1860). " The case was summarized as follows, emphasis mine:
"Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this
Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep
and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a Dis-
trict of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the
home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chi-
cago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by
almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal
suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related ac-
tions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable
to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several re-
lated City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amend-
ments.
Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are un-
constitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously
had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had
explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment
applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow estab-
lished Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on
three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542,
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535—
which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the
Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36. Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
In many ways, this case leaves open questions of more interpretation, and it does NOT strike down all possession laws or even licensing requirements. In fact, it may have the opposite effect, as it does include language.
From SCOTUS blog (emphasis mine again):
"Five members of the Supreme Court on Monday assured state, county and city officials not to worry: the new decision protecting a “right to keep and bear arms” against government action at any level — local, state or national — “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” But the Court majority did not have any assurances for judges at every level, that they will be spared the duty of ruling on many forms of gun regulation that a legislature, county board, or city council has chosen to enact. And the Court gave those judges very little guidance, in its ruling in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, on how they are to analyze those laws.
The Court did not even rule on the constitutionality of the one law that was at issue — a handgun ban in Chicago — nor did it tell the Seventh Circuit Court what constitutional standard to apply in judging that law when the case returns there. That particular law’s fate, like that of so many others around the nation, now must await a new round in court."
So, it's not at all a "done deal"
Previous Topic
Index
