8

J.K Rowling has introduced American wizards into the Potterverse, but I am curious about 2 aspects:

1. Are wizards covered by the 2nd Amendment?

Do wands qualify as 'arms', and as such, are American wizards covered by the right to wield them - given that the well regulated Wizard Militia, was necessary to the security of a free England (against Voldemort).

2. If not, is there a wizard equivalent?

Alternatively, is there a wizarding alternative that grants them the right to wield wands in their day to day use?

1
  • it's worth noting a wand is little more lethal than a gun, but can easily infringe upon every other right in the constitution with spells like the imperious curse.
    – Ummdustry
    Aug 9 '18 at 19:34
6

Probably not

First, wizards have their own laws. For example, there is a Minister for Magic, who is entirely separate from the Muggle governing apparatus. Similarly, the United States has a Magical Congress. As such, wizards do not recognize the authority of non-magical governments. While the Muggle government might well argue that the Second Amendment covers wands, it seems unlikely. So the answer to the first point is no.

With regard to wizarding equivalents, I'm not sure JKR has specifically commented on a "right to bear wands" in the Potterverse. However, I think it unlikely that the U.S. is particularly concerned with wand rights.

On the whole, it would seem that wand regulations were stricter in the U.S.A., not more lenient:

Until the 1965 repeal of Rappaport’s Law, which enforced very strict conformity with the Statute of Secrecy, no child was allowed a wand until they arrived at Ilvermorny. Moreover, wands had to be left at Ilvermorny during vacations and only upon attaining seventeen years of age was the witch or wizard legally allowed to carry a wand outside school.

Given that there was heavy government regulation of wands until well into the modern period, in order to enforce compliance with the Statute of Secrecy, it seems unlikely that adults had legally guaranteed freedom from government regulation of their wand usage.

2
  • 1
    Regarding a right to bear wands, it is said in Deathly Hallows that Goblins at least are forbidden from using wands by (human) wizarding law.
    – chirlu
    Jul 31 '16 at 10:31
  • 1
    A side remark: It’s unclear what the initial bold Probably not is supposed to be the answer to. I suppose it’s not the answer to “Do American wizards have the right to bear wands?”.
    – chirlu
    Jul 31 '16 at 10:33
0

Remember that prohibiting wands has a far more pervasive effect on wizards than prohibiting firearms has on Muggles/No-Majs.

We only use our guns for a small set of purposes, but wizarding folk require wands for getting just about anything done.

Yes, the under-seventeens are prohibited from carrying their wands outside of school, but on the other hand, even jurisdictions that permit adults to own and bear arms aren't necessarily as keen on allowing children to do it.

The American wizarding community might also have stricter laws requiring that wands be hidden from No-Maj eyes at all times.

0

Yes, because because the International Confederation of Wizards decrees that all wizards have the right to wands.

American wizards would have the right to carry wands, but not specifically because they are American. Under international wizarding law, wizards worldwide are given this right. The International Confederation of Wizards has guaranteed wizards the right to carry their wands at all times since 1692.

2 The right to carry a wand at all times was established by the International Confederation of Wizards in 1692, when Muggle persecution was at its height and the wizards were planning their retreat into hiding.”
- Quidditch Through the Ages

So yes, American wizards would have the right to carry a wand, as wizards worldwide do.

Any further laws on American wizards’ wands would be up to MACUSA.

MACUSA didn’t interact with the No-Maj government, and it’s highly unlikely they’d consider a Muggle law on guns to mean they must allow all wizards the right to wands. MACUSA was entirely separate from the No-Maj government, and likely wouldn’t consider certain laws applicable to the wizarding community. Owning a wand is very different to owning a gun, and they’d be more interested in controlling wands, since wizards misusing them could break the Statute of Secrecy.

In the Old World, there had always been a degree of covert cooperation and communication between No-Maj governments and their magical counterparts. In America, MACUSA acted totally independently of the No-Maj government.
- Rappaport’s Law, History of Magic in North America (Pottermore)

The Second Amendment would therefore have no bearing on MACUSA, and would have no effect on American wizards’ rights to own wands. It’s a different situation controlled by a different body.

American wizards need wand permits - which may be revocable.

Wand ownership was actually more restricted in America. All wizards were required by law to have a wand permit. Presumably, if they don’t have one, it’ll be illegal for them to own and use a wand. In addition, it seems likely that their wand permit could be revoked if MACUSA considered them to be misusing their wand. Wand ownership doesn’t seem to be considered a right by MACUSA.

Legislation introduced at the end of the nineteenth century meant that every member of the magical community in America was required to carry a ‘wand permit’, a measure that was intended to keep tabs on all magical activity and identify the perpetrators by their wands.
- 1920s Wizarding America, History of Magic in North America (Pottermore)

MACUSA seems to control wands much more than the British Ministry of Magic, and owning and using a wand seems to be treated more as an earned privilege (that can be revoked) than a right.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy