document_title: AR-15 style rifle

question_text: what does the ar in ar 15 mean

question_tokens: what does the ar in ar 15 mean

text: AR-15 style rifle

text: Terminology

text: In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight assault rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15.[7][8] Due to financial problems, and limitations in terms of manpower and production capacity, ArmaLite sold the design and the AR-15 trademark along with the ArmaLite AR-10 to Colt's Manufacturing Company in 1959.[9]  In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[10]  After Colt's patents expired in 1977, an active marketplace emerged for other manufacturers to produce and sell their own semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles.[1]  Some versions of the AR-15 were classified as "assault weapons" and banned under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[5] [11]

text: In 2009, the term "modern sporting rifle" was coined by the National Shooting Sports Foundation for its survey that year as a marketing term used by the firearms industry to describe modular semi-automatic rifles including AR-15s.[12][13][14][15]  Today, nearly every major firearm manufacturer produces its own generic AR-15 style rifle.[16][14]  As Colt continues to own and use the AR-15 trademark for its line of AR-15 variants, other manufacturers must use their own model numbers and names to market their AR-15 style rifles for commercial sale.[17]

text: Modularity

text: While most earlier breech-loading rifles had a single receiver housing both the trigger and reloading mechanism, an innovative feature of the AR-15 was modular construction to simplify substitution of parts and avoid need for arsenal facilities for most repairs of malfunctioning military rifles.[18] A distinctive two-part receiver is used by both military and sporting AR-15 style rifles. As civilian ownership of AR-15 style rifles became sufficient to create a market for improvements, numerous manufacturers began producing one or more "improved" modules, assemblies, or parts with features not found on factory rifles; and individuals with average mechanical aptitude can often substitute these pieces for original equipment. Due to the vast assortment of aftermarket parts and accessories available, AR-15 style rifles have also been referred to as "the Swiss Army knife of rifles",[19] "Barbie Dolls for Guys"[20][21][22] or "LEGOs" for adults.[23][24][25] These more or less interchangeable modules are a defining characteristic of AR-15 style modern sporting rifles.[26]

text: The lower receiver is the serial-numbered part legally defined as the firearm under United States law. The lower receiver is visually distinguished by the trigger guard ahead of the detachable pistol grip, and behind the magazine well capable of holding detachable magazines. The lower receiver holds the trigger assembly including the hammer, and is the attachment point for the buttstock. The lower receiver is attached to the upper receiver by two removable pins. Disassembly for cleaning or repair of malfunctions often requires removal of these pins. Removal of the rear take-down pin allows the receiver to be opened by rotation around the forward pivot pin as a hinge.[18]

text: The upper receiver contains the bolt carrier assembly, and is attached to the barrel assembly. Sights will be attached to the upper receiver or to the barrel assembly. A handguard usually encloses the barrel and a gas-operated reloading device using burnt powder gas vented from a hole (or port) in the barrel near the forward end of the handguard. The handguard is attached to the upper receiver and may also be attached to the barrel.[18]

text: The initial design included a tube to vent burnt powder gas back into the bolt carrier assembly where it expands in a variable volume chamber forcing the bolt open to eject the spent cartridge case. A buffer spring in the buttstock then pushes the bolt closed picking up a new cartridge from the magazine. This direct gas impingement (DGI) system has the disadvantage of venting unburned smokeless powder residue into the receiver where it may ultimately accumulate in quantities causing malfunctions. A more recent alternative design has a metal operating rod pushing against the bolt carrier from a gas piston under the handguard near the barrel port. This piston keeps the receiver cleaner by exhausting under the handguard.[27] While both the DGI and piston systems produce semi-automatic fire, an alternative unported barrel assembly includes a sliding handguard connected to a rod moving the bolt by a pump action and eliminating semi-automatic fire.[28]

text: Most rifles eject spent cartridges from the right side of the receiver away from right handed shooters who place the butt against the right shoulder while sighting with the right eye and using a finger of the right hand to pull the trigger.[29] Right-side ejection is a disadvantage for the third of the population whose left eye is dominant,[30] and for the tenth of the population who are left handed,[31] because holding these rifles against their left shoulder for maximum accuracy causes the rifle to eject hot spent cases toward the chest, neck or face of a left handed shooter.[32] The modular design of AR-15 style rifles has encouraged several manufacturers to offer specialized parts including leftward ejecting upper receivers for converting right handed AR-15 style rifles for left handed use.[33][34][35]

text: Some AR-15-style rifles have features limiting use of detachable magazines to comply with state regulations.[36][37] A few unusual versions are incapable of semi-automatic fire.[28][38]  Nearly all versions of the civilian AR-15 have a pistol grip like the military versions, and some have folding or collapsible stocks like the M4 carbine which reduce the overall length of the rifle.

text: Comparison to military versions

text: The semi-automatic civilian AR-15 was introduced by Colt in 1963.  The primary distinction between civilian semi-automatic rifles and military models is select fire.  Military models were produced with firing modes, semi-automatic fire and either fully automatic fire mode or burst fire mode, in which the rifle fires three rounds in succession when the trigger is depressed.  Most components are interchangeable between semi-auto and select fire rifles including magazines, sights, upper receiver, barrels and accessories.[39][40]  The military M4 carbine typically uses a 14.5" barrel.  Civilian rifles commonly have 16 inch or longer barrels to comply with the National Firearms Act.[41]

text: In order to prevent a civilian semi-automatic AR-15 from being readily converted for use with the select fire components a number of features were changed. Parts changed include the lower receiver, bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, and safety/mode selector. The semi-automatic bolt carrier has a longer lightening slot to prevent the bolt's engagement with an automatic sear. Due to a decrease in mass the buffer spring is heavier. On the select fire version, the hammer has an extra spur which interacts with the additional auto-sear that holds it back until the bolt carrier group is fully in battery, when automatic fire is selected.[42]  Using a portion of the select fire parts in a semi-automatic rifle will not enable a select fire option.[43]  As designed by Colt the pins supporting the semi-auto trigger and hammer in the lower receiver are larger than those used in the military rifle to prevent interchangeability between semi-automatic and select fire components.[44]

text: Production and sales

text: The first version produced for commercial sale by Colt was the AR-15 Sporter, in .223 Remington, with a 20-inch barrel and issued with 5-round magazines.[10] Initial sales of the Colt AR-15 were slow, primarily due to its fixed sights and carry handle that made scopes difficult to mount and awkward to use.[45]

text: In the 1990s, sales of AR-15 style rifles increased dramatically, partly as a result of the introduction of the flat top upper receiver which allowed scopes and sighting devices to be easily mounted as well as new features such as free floating hand guards that increased accuracy.[45]  While only a handful of companies were manufacturing these rifles in 1994, by the 21st century the number of AR-15 style rifles had more than doubled.[46] From 2000 to 2015, the number of manufacturers of AR-15 style variants and knock-offs increased from 29 to about 500.[47] Today, AR-15 style rifles are available in a wide range of configurations and calibers from a large number of manufacturers. These configurations range from standard full-sizes rifles with 20 inch barrels, to short carbine-length models with 16 inch barrels, adjustable length stocks and optical sights, to long range target models with 24 inch barrels, bipods and high-powered scopes.[48]

text: Estimates vary as to how many of the rifles are owned in the United States. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated that approximately 5 million to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in the U.S. within the broader total of the 300 million firearms owned by Americans.[49]

text: Hunting

text: Some hunters prefer using AR-15 style rifles because of their versatility, accuracy, and wide variety of available features.[50] Collapsible stocks are convenient for hunters who pack their rifles into remote hunting locations.[51] Construction with lightweight polymers and corrosion-resistant alloys makes these rifles preferred for hunting in moist environments with less concern about rusting or warping wood stocks. Positioning of the AR-15 safety is an improvement over traditional bolt action hunting rifles. Many states require hunters to use reduced-capacity magazines,[52] but the self-loading feature is important when shooting pack animals like coyote so several may be killed before the pack disperses and hides. If a hunter misses with a first shot, the self-loading feature enables rapid followup shots against dangerous animals like feral pigs or rapidly moving animals like jackrabbits.[50] Hunters shooting larger game animals often use upper receivers and barrels adapted for larger cartridges or heavier bullets. Several states consider .22 caliber cartridges like the 5.56×45mm NATO inadequate to ensure a clean kill.[53][54][55]

text: Cartridge variations

text: Since the upper and lower receivers may be swapped between rifles, forensic firearm examination of bullets and spent cartridges may reveal distinguishing marks from the barrel and upper receiver group without identifying the lower receiver for which legal records may be available.[56] An individual may use several upper receiver groups with the same lower receiver. These upper receiver groups may have differing barrel lengths and sights, and may fire different cartridges. A hunter with a single lower receiver might have one upper receiver with a .223 Remington barrel and telescopic sight for varmint hunting in open country and another upper receiver with a .458 SOCOM barrel and iron sights for big-game hunting in brushy woodland. The dimensions of upper and lower receivers originally designed for the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge impose an overall length limit and diameter limits when adapting modules for other cartridges included in this list of AR platform calibers.[57][48] The same magazine in the lower receiver group may hold differing numbers of different cartridges.[27]

text: Use in crime and mass shootings

text: While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns[58][59][60] and 25% of the weapons used in mass shootings were assault weapons[61], AR-15 style rifles  have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[58] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[62]  AR-15 variants were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history,[63] including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[64] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[64] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[65] Gun  expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.[66][67][68]

text: Following the use of a Colt AR-15 rifle in the Port Arthur massacre, the worst single-person shooting incident in Australian history, the country enacted the National Firearms Agreement in 1996, restricting the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles with a capacity of more than 5 rounds (Category D[69]).[70][71][72]

text: Partial list of models

text:
Barrett REC7
Bushmaster XM-15
Carbon 15
Colt AR-15
Daniel Defense DDM4
DPMS Panther Arms Tactical Rifle
Heckler & Koch MR556
Lewis Machine & Tool Company CQB16
LWRC International IC series
Mossberg Tactical Semi-Automatic Rifles
Olympic Arms K series
Patriot Ordnance Factory rifles and carbines
Remington R5 RGP
Rock River Arms LAR-15
Ruger SR-556
Savage Arms MSR-15
SIG Sauer SIG516
SIG Sauer SIGM400
Smith & Wesson M&P15
Stag Arms STAG-15
Wilson Combat Tactical Rifle

text: Examples of AR-15 style rifles and carbines

text:
REC7 by Barrett

SR-556 by Ruger

SIG516 by SIG Sauer

M&P15 by Smith & Wesson


document_title: Right of revolution

question_text: what principle of chinese government allowed a revolution to overthrow and replace a corrupt ruler

root

text: Right of revolution

text: History[edit]

text: Early precedent[edit]

text: To justify their overthrowing of the earlier Shang Dynasty, the kings of the Zhou Dynasty (1122 – 256 BC) of China promulgated the concept known as the Mandate of Heaven, that Heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased and withdraw its mandate from a despotic ruler.[1]

tag: p

text: The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that the Mandate of Heaven had passed on. Throughout Chinese history, rebels who opposed the ruling dynasty made the claim that the Mandate of Heaven had passed, giving them the right to revolt. Ruling dynasties were often uncomfortable with this, and the writings of the Confucian philosopher Mencius (372 – 289 BC) were often suppressed for declaring that the people have the right to overthrow a ruler that did not provide for their needs.

text: Europe[edit]

text: In Europe, one example of the emergence of a right of revolution can be traced back to Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker, who in 1018 had a dramatic confrontation with the King of Sweden. The lawspeaker claimed the King of Sweden was accountable to the people and would be overthrown by them if he continued with his unpopular war with Norway. Another example is Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215, that required the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It included a "security clause" that gave the right to a committee of barons to overrule the will of the King through force if needed. Magna Carta directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution.[2]

text: The Golden Bull of 1222 was a golden bull, or edict, issued by King Andrew II of Hungary. The law established the rights of Hungary's noblemen, including the right to disobey the King when he acted contrary to law (jus resistendi). The Golden Bull is often compared to the Magna Carta; the Bull was the first constitutional document of the nation of Hungary, while the Magna Carta was the first constitutional charter of the nation of England.

text: Thomas Aquinas also wrote of the right to resist tyrannical rule in the Summa Theologica. John of Salisbury advocated direct revolutionary assassination of unethical tyrannical rulers in his Policraticus. This theological notion was expanded in the Early Modern Period. The Jesuits, especially Robert Bellarmine and Juan de Mariana, were widely known and often feared for advocating resistance to tyranny and often tyrannicide—one of the implications of the natural law focus of the School of Salamanca.

text: John Calvin believed something similar. In a commentary on the Book of Daniel, he observed that contemporary monarchs pretend to reign “by the grace of God,” but the pretense was “a mere cheat” so that they could “reign without control.” He believed that “Earthly princes depose themselves while they rise up against God,” so “it behooves us to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” When ordinary citizens are confronted with tyranny, he wrote, ordinary citizens have to suffer it. But magistrates have the duty to “curb the tyranny of kings,” as had the Tribunes in ancient Rome, the Ephori in Sparta, and the Demarchs in ancient Athens. That Calvin could support a right of resistance in theory did not mean that he thought such resistance prudent in all circumstances. At least publicly, he disagreed with the Scottish Calvinist John Knox’s call for revolution against the Catholic Queen Mary I Tudor of England.[3]

text: The Catholic Church shared Calvin's prudential concerns - the Pope condemned Guy Fawkes' Gunpowder Plot, and Regnans in Excelsis was widely considered to be a mistake. Instead, the safest course of action for the people was to endure tyranny for as long as it could be borne, rather than run the larger risks of armed revolution.

text: The right of revolution was expounded by the Monarchomachs in the context of the French Wars of Religion, and by Huguenots thinkers who legitimized tyrannicides.

text: Modern development[edit]

text: The concept of the right of revolution was developed at the beginning of the Enlightenment era in the work Two Treatises of Government. Written by the philosopher John Locke, the right to revolution formed an integral part of his social contract theory, in which he tried to define the origins and basis for social conditions and relationships. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny.

text: Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution in Two Treatises of Government: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”[4]

text: Use in history[edit]

text: Revolutionary movements subsequent to this, all drew on Locke's theory as a justification for the exercise of the right of revolution.

text: During the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Parliament of England effectively deposed James II of England and replaced him with William III of Orange-Nassau, due to the former's unacceptable leanings towards absolutism and Catholicism. Although Locke's treatise was published the year after, his ideas were already widely current in the English political system at the time.

text: Although Locke claimed that his book's purpose was to justify William III's ascension to the throne, it has been argued that the bulk of the writing was instead completed between 1679–1680 during the Exclusion Crisis, which attempted to prevent James II from ever taking the throne in the first place. Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, Locke's mentor, patron and friend, introduced the bill, but it was ultimately unsuccessful.[5] Alternatively, the work is better associated with the revolutionary conspiracies that swirled around what would come to be known as the Rye House Plot.[6]

text: The right to revolution played a large part in the writings of the American revolutionaries in the run up to the American Revolution. The political tract Common Sense used the concept as an argument for rejection of the British Monarchy and separation from the British Empire, as opposed to merely self-government within it. It was also cited in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, when a group of representatives from the various states signed a declaration of independence citing charges against King George III. As the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government “destructive” of those rights.

text: The right of revolution was also included in the 1793 preface to the French Constitution of 1793 during the French Revolution. This preface from 24 June 1793 contained a declaration of the rights of man and citizen including right to rebellion in §35: "When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people, and for every portion thereof, the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties."[7]

text: Nature of the right[edit]

text: Individual or collective right[edit]

text: Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be a collective right under English constitutional and political theory.[8]

text: As Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “private individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries....”[9] Instead, “not just a few individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was justified and with most writers speaking of a “ ‘whole people who are the Publick,’ or the body of the people acting in their ‘public Authority,’ indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.”[10]

text: Right versus duty[edit]

text: Some philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government but also their duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer opines, "It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to rebel goes beyond and breaks it."[11]

text: Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries, "The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely important to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and of nature's God when they threw off absolute despotism."[12] The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" (emphasis added). The phrase "long train of abuses" is a reference to John Locke's similar statement in Second Treatise of Government, where he explicitly established overthrow of a tyrant as an obligation. Martin Luther King likewise held that it is the duty of the people to resist unjust laws.

text: Preconditions[edit]

text: Some theories of the right of revolution imposed significant preconditions on its exercise, limiting its invocation to the most dire circumstances. In the American Revolutionary context, one finds expressions of the right of revolution both as subject to precondition and as unrestrained by conditions.

text: On the eve of the American Revolution, for example, Americans considered their plight to justify exercise of the right of revolution. Alexander Hamilton justified American resistance as an expression of “the law of nature” redressing violations of “the first principles of civil society” and invasions of “the rights of a whole people.”[13] For Thomas Jefferson the Declaration was the last-ditch effort of an oppressed people—the position in which many Americans saw themselves in 1776. Jefferson’s litany of colonial grievances was an effort to establish that Americans met their burden to exercise the natural law right of revolution.

text: Certain scholars, such as legal historian Christian Fritz, have written that with the end of the Revolution, Americans did not renounce the right of revolution. In fact they codified it in their new constitutions[14] and even today 35 constitutions of American states have the same or similar provisions on the right of revolution as in the preamble of the American Declaration of Independence.[15] For instance, constitutions considered to be "conservative," such as those of post-revolutionary Massachusetts in 1780, preserved the people's right "to reform, alter, or totally change" government not only for their protection or safety but also whenever their "prosperity and happiness reduire[d] it."[16] This expression was not unusual in the early American constitutions. Connecticut's 1818 constitution articulated the people's right "at all times" to alter government "in such a manner as they may think expedient."[17]

text: Fritz, in American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War, describes a duality in American views on preconditions to the right of revolution: "Some of the first state constitutions included 'alter or abolish' provisions that mirrored the traditional right of revolution" in that they required dire preconditions to its exercise.[18] Maryland's 1776 constitution and New Hampshire's 1784 constitutions required the perversion of the ends of government and the endangering of public liberty and that all other means of redress were to no avail.[19] But in contrast, other states dispensed with the onerous preconditions on the exercise of the right. In the 1776 Virginia constitution the right would arise simply if government was "inadequate" and Pennsylvania's 1776 constitution required only that the people considered a change to be "most conducive" to the public welfare.[20]

text: Natural law or positive law[edit]

text: Descriptions of the Right of Revolution also differ in whether that right is considered to be a natural law (a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere) or positive law (law enacted or adopted by proper authority for governing of the state).

text: An example of the dual nature of the right of revolution as both a natural law and as positive law is found in the American revolutionary context. Although the American Declaration of Independence invoked the natural law right of revolution, natural law was not the sole justification for American independence. English constitutional doctrine also supported the colonists’ actions, at least up to a point. By the 1760s, English law recognized what William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England called “the law of redress against public oppression.”[21] Like the natural law’s right of revolution, this constitutional law of redress justified the people resisting the sovereign. This law of redress arose from a contract between the people and the king to preserve the public welfare. This original contract was “a central dogma in English and British constitutional law” since “time immemorial.”[22] The Declaration’s long list of grievances declared that this bargain had been breached.[23]

text: This well-accepted law of redress justified a people resisting unconstitutional acts of government. Liberty depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist. Unconstitutional commands breaching the “voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled” could be “ignored” and arbitrary commands opposed with force.[24] This right implied a duty on the part of the people to resist unconstitutional acts. As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775, government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited those powers and the people could reclaim them if government breached this constitutional contract.[25]

text: The law of redress had limits like the right of revolution under natural law. The law of redress, like the right of revolution, was not an individual right. It belonged to the community as a whole, as one of the parties to the original constitutional contract.[26] It was not a means of first resort, or response to trivial or casual errors of government.[27] Blackstone’s Commentaries suggested that using the law of redress would be “extraordinary,” for example applying if the king broke the original contract, violated “the fundamental laws,” or abandoned the kingdom.[28] During the Stamp Act crisis of the 1760s the Massachusetts Provincial Congress considered resistance to the king justified if freedom came under attack from “the hand of oppression” and “the merciless feet of tyranny.”[29] A decade later the “indictment” of George III in the Declaration of Independence sought to end his sovereign reign over the colonies because he violated the original constitutional contract.[30]

text: As explained in legal historian Christian Fritz’s description of the role of the right of revolution in American Revolution, American independence was justified by conventional theories under Anglo-American constitutional thought at the time about the people’s collective right to cast off an arbitrary king. “Both natural law and English constitutional doctrine gave the colonists a right to revolt against the sovereign’s oppression.”[31] But these understandings about the right of revolution on the eve of the American Revolution rested on a traditional model of government. That model posited the existence of a hypothetical bargain struck in the mists of antiquity between a king and a people. “In this bargain, the people were protected by the monarch in exchange for the people giving the king allegiance. This was a contractual relationship. American revolutionaries accused George III of breaching his implied duty of protection under that contract, thereby releasing the people in the colonies from their allegiance. The sovereign’s breach of the hypothetical contract gave rise to the subjects’ right of revolution”—grounded on both natural law and English constitutional doctrine.”[32]

text: Examples as positive law[edit]

text: Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce. Among the examples of an articulation of a right of revolution as positive law include:

text:
The szlachta, nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also maintained a right of rebellion, known as rokosz.
New Hampshire's constitution[33] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the New Hampshire constitution's Bill of Rights:

Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

The Kentucky constitution[34] also guarantees a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in the Kentucky Bill of Rights:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

Similar wording is used in Pennsylvania's constitution,[35] under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Article I, §1 of the Tennessee constitution[36] states:

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper

North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights:[37]

3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

The Constitution of Texas[38] also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2:

All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

The preface to the French Constitution of 1793 is a "Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen" with several right of revolution provisions which stated in

Article 11: Any act directed against a person, apart from the cases and without the forms determined by law, is arbitrary and tyrannical; if attempt is made to execute such act by force, the person who is the object thereof has the right to resist it by force.[39]
Article 12: Those who incite, dispatch, sign, or execute arbitrary acts, or cause them to be executed, are guilty and must be punished.[39]
Article 27: Let any individual who would usurp sovereignty be put to death instantly by free men.[39]
Article 33-35: Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of man. There is oppression against the social body when a single one of its members is oppressed. There is oppression against every member when the social body is oppressed. When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people, and for every portion thereof, the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties.[39]

The 1949 Grundgesetz, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, contains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses protecting human and natural rights, as well as a clause in its Article 20 (since 1968) recognizing the right of the people to resist unconstitutional tyranny, if all other measures have failed:

All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.[40]

All Greek constitutions since the Greek Revolution have contained a right to resist in their concluding article. The current Greek Constitution states in Article 120:

Observance of the constitution is entrusted to the patriotism of the Greeks who shall have the right and the duty to resist by all possible means against anyone who attempts the violent abolition of the Constitution.[41]

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, a part of the constitutional systems of both the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic, states in Article 23:

Citizens have the right to resist anybody who would do away with the democratic order of human rights and fundamental freedoms, established by this Charter, if the actions of constitutional bodies or the effective use of legal means have been frustrated.[42]

This right is inferred in the third paragraph of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law.[43]

tag: ul

text: Relevance in positive law[edit]

text: Some have argued that because in modern times democratic governments can be overthrown by popular vote, the right of the people to remove the government has become embedded into the political system. In a study of the idea of rule by the people in the American Revolution and in early post-revolutionary America, legal historian Christian G. Fritz writes:

text: “The constitutional logic of recognizing the people, not a king, as the sovereign implied the irrelevance of a right of revolution in America. This did not develop instantly or uniformly after the establishment of American governments. Some of the first state constitutions included ‘alter or abolish’ provisions that mirrored the traditional right of revolution.... Other state constitutions adopted different versions of this right to ‘alter or abolish’ government that did not sound like the traditional right of revolution. In these provisions, the ability of the people to revise constitutions existed regardless of the traditional preconditions for the right of revolution.... Increasingly, as Americans included it in their constitutions, the right of revolution came to be seen as a constitutional principle permitting the people as the sovereign to control government and revise their constitutions without limit. In this way, the right broke loose from its traditional moorings of resistance to oppression. The alter or abolish provisions could now be interpreted consistent with the constitutional principle that in America, the sovereign was the people.”[44]

text: However, the Arab Spring is clear evidence that revolutions are still happening, which raises the importance of the right of revolution in 21st century. As terrorism is gaining recognition as a crime under international law, the right of revolution is seen as an instrument to distinguish terrorists from freedom fighters.[45] At present, however, international law, as practiced by states does not make any distinction and does not grant a right of rebellion, let alone revolution even against the most serious violations; some argue that this is unsatisfactory, and that a right to forcibly resist genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes on a massive scale should be recognized.[46]


document_title: Former Presidents Act

question_text: how long do former presidents receive secret service protection

text: Former Presidents Act

text: History[edit]

text: Before 1958, the U.S. federal government provided no pension or other retirement benefits to former United States presidents. Andrew Carnegie offered to endow a US$25,000 annual pension for former Chief Executives in 1912, but congressmen questioned the propriety of such a private pension. That prompted legislation to provide benefits to former presidents.[1]

text: When the Former Presidents Act took effect, there were two living former presidents: Herbert Hoover and Harry S. Truman. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president to fall under the act upon leaving office.

text: The original act provided for lifetime Secret Service protection for former presidents. In 1997, it was reduced to 10 years for presidents taking office after 1997. The 1997 amendment was reverted by the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012 (Pub.L. 112–257).[2] All living former presidents and their spouses are now entitled to receive lifetime Secret Service protection.[3]

text: Current status[edit]

text: By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection.

text: Pension[edit]

text: The Secretary of the Treasury pays a taxable pension to the president. Former presidents receive a pension equal to the pay that the head of an executive department (Executive Level I) would be paid, as of 2015[update] $203,700 per year.[4] The pension begins immediately after a president's departure from office.[5] A former president's spouse may also be paid a lifetime annual pension of $20,000 if they relinquish any other statutory pension.[1]

text: Transition[edit]

text: Washington Transition funding for the expenses of leaving office is available for seven months. It covers office space, staff compensation, communications services, and printing and postage associated with the transition.[1]

text: Staff and office[edit]

text: Private office staff and related funding is provided by the Administrator of the General Services Administration. Persons employed under this subsection are selected by and responsible only to the former president for the performance of their duties. Each former president fixes basic rates of compensation for persons employed for him, not exceeding an annualized total of $150,000 for the first 30 months and $96,000 thereafter.[1]

text: Medical insurance[edit]

text: Former presidents are entitled to medical treatment in military hospitals; they pay for this at interagency rates set by the Office of Management and Budget. Two-term presidents may buy health insurance under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; a GSA legal opinion ruled Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush ineligible.[1][6]

text: Secret Service protection[edit]

text: Former presidents were entitled from 1965 to 1996 to lifetime Secret Service protection, for themselves, spouses, and children under 16. A 1994 statute, (Pub.L. 103–329), limited post-presidential protection to ten years for presidents inaugurated after January 1, 1997.[7] Under this statute, Bill Clinton would still be entitled to lifetime protection, and all subsequent presidents would have been entitled to ten years' protection.[8] On January 10, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, reinstating lifetime Secret Service protection for his predecessor George W. Bush, himself, and all subsequent presidents.[9]

text: Richard Nixon relinquished his Secret Service protection in 1985, the only president to do so.[10]