The rights conferred by the second amendment are fundamental freedoms of the Bill of Right of December 15, 1791. To the question should a part of the constitution be repealed because the era is changing, there are great differences as to the answer to bring. Already in 1955, in The reasons of the adversary published¹ on October 28, 1955 a French writer postulates that the oppressed who takes up arms in the name of justice, he takes a step on the ground of injustice. However, if the source of law suffers from obsolescence, the legislator has the prerogatives to modify the law and therefore the definition of what is lawful. But in doing so, it itself introduces a measure that generates jurisprudential instability. Conversely, if it is the era of time which is more polymistic than before, the legislator can rigidify the constitutional edifice in order to guarantee its durability for the future and therefore, define the illicit. In both cases, criteria of objectivity are opposed to erect the moralization of our society. So, it is in the light of conditions crossing the two points of view that it would become appropriate to question the second amendment. Therefore, it is enlightened by the crisis in the rule of law that it is appropriate to question the place of arms. Fairfax prinery subscribes to maintain the second amendment for a string of audible reasons that we will try to follow by limiting the subject to objective criteria released following health and judicial decisions.

In progress