The Right to Bear Hands
Kira Granito, Staff Writer | 2025
Image of a woman in combat attire. Image provided by Pexels.
Disclaimer: This research article is solely intended to be an opinion piece published by students that is corroborated by facts and credible sources. Under no circumstances should any article published by the UNLV Undergraduate Law Review be considered as actual legal advice or legal counsel.
Introduction
The law recognizes the right to bear arms, but can it also recognize the right to bear hands? In criminal law, a person’s hands may be classified as deadly weapons – a designation typically reserved for firearms, knives, and other lethal instruments. Yet hands are also vital tools in lawful self-defense, especially when a weapon is inaccessible or impractical. This paradox raises deeper questions about the role of physical skill in self-defense cases and broader implications of how the law treats trained individuals. Under what circumstances should hands qualify as deadly weapons, and how does an individual’s level of training influence this classification? Should self-defense laws evolve to account for the varying capabilities of individuals, particularly those with combat training?
The classification of human hands as deadly weapons invites a deeper examination of criminal liability, prosecutorial discretion, and the constitutional framework of self-defense. Specifically, it raises the question of whether the right to bodily self-defense should be afforded the same protection as the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Clear legal standards surrounding bodily self-defense are crucial to ensuring fairness, especially as the law grapples with how to appropriately assess the use of hands in self-defense by trained individuals. The classification of hands as deadly weapons has created tension with the right to self-defense, especially for individuals trained in combat.
The Deadly Weapon Doctrine and the Classification of Hands
In criminal law, a deadly weapon is generally defined as any object or instrument that is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury [4]. This includes inherently dangerous items by design - such as guns, knives, or blunt objects - as well as objects that can become deadly depending on how they are used. While this core definition remains standard in most jurisdictions, courts have expanded its interpretation to include body parts in certain circumstances.
The deadly weapon doctrine originally emerged to help distinguish varying degrees of criminal conduct, especially in violent offenses. Traditionally, the term referred to external objects designed to kill or seriously injure. However, modern case law recognizes that body parts - particularly hands or feet - can be classified as deadly weapons when used with sufficient force or skill to cause significant harm. This evolution reflects a shift from focusing solely on the nature of the object to also considering the manner of use, the defendant’s capabilities, and the outcome of the force applied [6].
This classification carries serious legal consequences, particularly in sentencing and charging decisions. Hands, by default, are not considered deadly weapons. However, courts may designate them as such when their use results in severe injury or death. In evaluating such cases, courts typically consider the extent of the injuries, the context of the incident, and the intent behind the use of force.
A controversial factor in this analysis is the role of physical training. Courts and prosecutors may consider a defendant’s background in martial arts, boxing, or other combat disciplines when evaluating whether the force used was excessive [5]. This raises a broader question: Should trained individuals be held to a higher standard of care when using their hands in self-defense?
Legal precedents reveal inconsistent interpretations of this issue. In United States v. Rocha, the Ninth Circuit concluded that, under certain circumstances, the human body alone can satisfy the federal definition of a deadly weapon [9]. Similarly, in State v. Russell, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a conviction based on the defendant’s trained fighting skills contributing to the severity of the injuries inflicted [8]. In People v. Carter, the New York Court of Appeals extended the deadly weapon doctrine to include shod feet, further expanding the boundary of what constitutes a weapon [1].
Complicating legal interpretations for deadly weapons is an enduring cultural myth that martial artists must “register” their hands as deadly weapons. While no such legal requirement exists in U.S. law – aside from limited statutory provisions in Guam – this myth reinforces a societal perception that physically trained individuals are inherently more dangerous. Although no formal legal distinction is made between trained and untrained individuals in most jurisdictions, prosecutors may still use a defendant’s martial arts training as circumstantial evidence of intent to cause harm, especially in cases involving serious injury. This perception can influence case outcomes, often creating disadvantages for those with self-defense training, even when their actions might otherwise be considered reasonable.
Self-Defense and the Right to Use One’s Hands
The legal doctrine of self-defense rests on four elements: imminence, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief. Under this framework, the human body (particularly the hands) is considered a natural and lawful means for protection. However, legal tensions arise when an individual with combat training uses bodily force in self-defense. In such cases, the critical issue becomes whether the force used was proportional to the threat, necessary to prevent imminent harm, and whether the individual’s training affects what a “reasonable person” would have done under similar circumstances.
In self-defense cases, the law scrutinizes whether the force used was proportional to the threat. For trained individuals, a key question arises: does their training make their use of force inherently more dangerous or excessive, even if the threat they faced was identical to that of an untrained person? Though no statute explicitly imposes different self-defense standards on trained individuals, prosecutors may argue that trained fighters are more capable of inflicting serious harm and thus more likely to have exceeded a lawful response. This creates a legal “gray area” where combat training becomes a double-edged sword, enhancing one’s ability to defend oneself while simultaneously increasing the risk of criminal liability.
A notable example of this issue is the case of martial artist Jarrod Wyatt, a mixed martial artist charged with murder by California prosecutors in 2008. While the case involved complex mental health issues, prosecutors heavily emphasized Wyatt’s MMA background, painting him as particularly dangerous. Although the case was not decided solely on self-defense grounds, it illustrates how a defendant’s physical skill may be used to suggest internet or lethality, even when they were not the initial aggressor.
The use of combat training as circumstantial evidence introduces practical and ethical challenges. In the absence of clear legal standards, prosecutors have broad discretion to frame physical skill as evidence of excessive force or malicious intent. This prosecutorial latitude risks producing unequal outcomes and may create a chilling effect – discouraging trained individuals from defending themselves for fear that their capabilities could be used against them in court.
Constitution Implications: Is There a “Right to Bear Hands”?
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but it remains an open question whether this protection extends to the use of one’s body in self-defense []. Self-defense, as a legally recognized right, permits individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm. In this context, hands are not only natural instruments of protection but, in many situations, the only available means of defense.
A conceptual expansion of the Second Amendment to include unarmed self-defense – that is, the right to defend oneself using one’s body – would support the fundamental right to protect oneself, even without a weapon. In other words, the right to self-defense shouldn’t depend on owning a gun or knife; it should also include the ability to use one’s body as an equal means of self-defense, based on the basic human right to control and defend one’s physical self.
Beyond Second Amendment considerations, the differential treatment of trained individuals raises significant due process and equal protection concerns. Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority that prosecutors have in deciding whether to bring charges, what charges to bring, and how to proceed with a case [2]. If two people engage in identical conduct, yet one faces enhanced charges solely due to their physical training or combat skills, the fairness of this discretion is called into question [10]. Under these circumstances, an individual’s training may be used as evidence of greater intent or lethality, even if their actions in the particular situation were identical to someone without training. This creates an imbalance in how individuals are treated under the law, as their physical abilities – rather than the specifics of their actions or intent – are being used to influence the severity of criminal charges.
The practice of using skill as a proxy for criminal intent creates inconsistencies in the application of justice [10]. When training is treated as a sign of malice or premeditation, it undermines the constitutional guarantees of fair treatment, and individuals may face harsher charges or legal consequences based solely on their physical abilities rather than their actual intent or actions.
Reforms in both legal doctrine and prosecutorial practices are necessary to address these inequities. Courts and legislatures should provide precise guidelines on when and how hands can be classified as deadly weapons. Additionally, prosecutorial standards should be reevaluated to ensure that physical training is not used as the sole basis for elevating criminal charges (assuming absence of clear evidence of malicious intent). Without these reforms, the principles of self-defense and fairness in criminal adjudication will continue to be undermined.
Conclusion
The classification of human hands within the criminal legal system reflects a persistent tension between the public safety concerns and the principles of self-defense. Myths surrounding martial arts and physical training continue to influence legal outcomes, making it crucial to reconsider the role of prosecutorial discretion and clarify when hands should be treated as deadly weapons. As statutory definitions remain imprecise, individuals may face unequal treatment based not on their actions, but on their physical abilities or training.
A reevaluation of legal standards, alongside a more consistent and equitable application of the law remains essential to ensure fairness for all individuals, regardless of their physical abilities. Clear and uniform definitions of what constitutes a deadly weapon – particularly in cases involving bodily force – are necessary to protect the right to self-defense and to prevent the criminalization of individuals solely because they are trained to defend themselves. Just as the right to bear arms reflects a broader right to self-preservation, the law must also recognize and protect the fundamental right to bear hands.
Sources
“Do Expert Fighters and Military Personnel Really Have to Register Their Hands as Deadly Weapons?" 2020. Today I Found Out, (June). https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/06/do-expert-fighters-and-military-personnel-really-have-to-register-their-hands-as-deadly-weapons/.
Dressler, Joshua. 2018. Understanding Criminal Law. 8th ed. New York, New York: Wolters Kluwer.
Elek, J. K. (2002). Prosecutorial discretion. In J. Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of crime and justice (2nd ed., pp. 1375–1376). Macmillan Reference USA.
Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2019). Black’s law dictionary (11th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
Harvard Law Review. n.d. “Public Carry and Criminal Law After Bruen." Harvard Law Review Forum 135. https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-135/public-carry-and-criminal-law-after-bruen/.
LaFave, Wayne R. 2021. Substantive Criminal Law. Vol. 3rd edition. St. Paul, Minnesota: n.p. People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113 (1981).
La Ganga, M. L. (2013, June 4). MMA fighter who cut out friend’s heart gets life sentence. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-xpm-2013-jun-04-la-me-ln-mma-fighter-life-sentence-20130604-story.html
State v. Russell, 755 P.2d 615 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/court-of-appeals-criminal/1988/10993.html
United States v. Rocha, 598 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010).
Volokh, Eugene. 2007. “Self-Defense and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Texas Review of Law & Politics 11 (2): 399-400.
Volokh, E. (2009). Implementing the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense: An analytical framework and a research agenda. UCLA Law Review, 56(6), 1443–1549.
