In the Talmudic tractate of Shabbos, chapter 6, the fourth Mishnah states "A man may not go out (of his private domain) with a sword, a longbow, protective armament, a metal staff or a spear. If he does so, he is required to bring to the Temple in Jerusalem a sacrificial sin offering as he has unintentionally desecrated the Sabbath. Rabbi Eliezer says this ruling is incorrect as such articles are ornamental objects (which are permissible to wear out of doors). (His source is Psalms 45: "Gird yourself with your sword, warrior, it is your glory and adornment"). The Sages (the majority) say these objects are an embarrassment, as it states in Isaiah (Chap. 2) "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks (referring to the period after the Messiah's arrival), nation shall not rise up against nation and men will learn war no more."

The position of the Sages in the Mishnah is that unless weapons will be considered ornamental objects for all time, they cannot be considered as such for carrying on the Sabbath even now before the Messiah's arrival. Throughout the entire compendium of the Mishnah, the opinion of the majority outweighs that of the individual.

The Aruch HaShulchan, a major work on Halacha written by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, section 301(51), explains the opening statement of the Mishnah to mean that weapons are essentially ornamentation to soldiers as that is their uniform. For persons not actively serving as soldiers these objects are ordinary burdens. Furthermore, the Mishnah speaks of these weapons as they are worn on a soldier's body. For, he concludes, if carried in the hands they would be no different than jewelry or ornamental clothing which is prohibited to be carried as is any type of object. (It would seem the Mishnah would prohibit modern body armor, as well, that is worn under a shirt since it is neither regular clothing or ornamental).

An acclaimed contemporary halachic authority, Rabbi Binyamin Zilber, in his work Az Nidbaru (Vols. 1 and 2) holds a slightly different view. He reasons that since a weapon is in essence a soldier's uniform, hence ornamental, it does not cease to be an ornament even when carried by hand.

Another halachic work, the Chelkas Yaakov, hold a very lenient view that in a case of necessity, a weapon may be worn (but not carried by hand) by either a soldier or citizen. His reasoning is that if it would be a prohibited action one would be forced to stay in his home and be unable to attend prayer services in the synagogue with a quorum as is preferable to praying alone. To this opinion, Rabbi Zilber strongly objects on the grounds that the Sages in the Mishnah agree with Rabbi Eliezer that a soldier's weapon is akin to jewelry, but since the verse mentioned in Psalms 45 states that at some future time there will not be a need for weapons then they cannot be considered ornament sin an absolute sense.

Our major reference of codified Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch written by Rabbi Yosef Caro (himself an exile of the Spanish Inquisition), rules like the Talmud in the tractate of Eruvin (45A) that those who rally to battle the enemy on the Sabbath may, of course, violate the carrying prohibition in doing so and even carry their weapons home after the enemy has been repulsed. The commentaries explain that if the defenders were prohibited from carrying their weaponry upon return they would not be inclined to a repeat performance. Even 3000 years ago men valued their defensive tools! The Talmud relates that originally the rabbinical injunction of not traveling farther than 2000 cubits outside the city was adhered to, and all able bodied citizens stored their weapons in a house outside the city wall. On one occasion, the enemy saw that the Jews had stored their weapons and were now unarmed. They launched a second attack. In the Jews' haste to retrieve their weapons, there erupted such pandemonium that more Jews died than the enemy would have killed. The Sages then decreed that the defenders' weapons could be carried all the way to each individual's home to insure that their means of defense was always immediately at hand.

The aforementioned Rabbi Zilber in his work Az Nidbaru concludes that the law in practice is the majority opinion of the Sages in the Mishnah, no difference between soldier or civilian unless the situation is one of immediate life or death.

In summation, if one is unfortunate to reside in a locale where violent crime is a constant threat a very competent halachic authority must be consulted. Judaism teaches that observance of the Sabbath is pivotal to Jewish life and must not be treated lightly. In the same vein, we are obligated to ignore the Sabbath in matters of immediate grave physical harm. The Talmud mentions in several places that it is a mandate to desecrate one Sabbath in order that many more Sabbaths be observed.

Life is a precious commodity which cannot be replaced. This theme is prevalent throughout Jewish law without any controversy.