Semi-weekly Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1871-1872, 1871-12-24
SELP-pEPENSE.
The Right TO Garry Arms-Jucge ALI
sons Opinion.


In the Court of Oyer and Terminer,
during the trial of Edward McNulty
for the murder of Jacob Gornor,
Peter Truitt . colored witness for
the Commonwealth, appeared on
the stand with loaded pistol upon
his person, which occasioned quite
sensation and considerable discus
sion. In the course of the trial his
Honor Judge Allison referred to the
subject in the following language:
There was something said, gentle
men, at an earlier stage of the case,
in regard to the right to one of the
witnesses to carry loaded pistol.
The witness having stated, on cross
examination, that he carried it for
defense Of his person, that he had
been shot at three or four times, in
his own door, at the election before
the last, and that as they all knew
him, he did not know what they
might do to him. This right was
questioned by the counsel for the
prisoner, which I felt it my duty to
say that, upon the facts stated by
the witness, he was, under the law
of the land, justified in carrying
upon his person loaded pistol and
that he could bring it with him here
if, under well-grounded apprehen-
sion or peril to his person or his Life,
hearmed for defense. I repeat now
to the jury in substance what I then
said and add that this is not an
uncertain or doubtful right; it is
guaranteed to the citizen by the
declaration ofrights, which is part
OF the fundamental law of the State
and is therefore above all acts of
Assembly, which might be passed to
abridge or take the privilege away.
The language of the Constitution
is chat the right of citizens to bear
arms in defense of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned"
This places the right above all legis-
latve, judicial, or individual ques-
ton; it cannot be taken away till
the Constitution itself upon this
subject be changed. But if it be
supposed that the act of the 18th of
May, 1850, is in conflict with this
constitutional right, the supposition
Is a clear misinterpretation of the
statute which makes it a crime for
any person to carry a concealed
deadly weapon with the intent
Herewith unlawfuny and malicious
ly to do injury to any person. This
act of Assembly is aimed at the in
tent to no unlawfully and malici-
Gus injury, and is designed to in
terfere with the sacred right of de-
Tense of life or person against vio-
lent or deadly assault, and is there
fore in entire harmony with the
constitutional privilege to which 1
referred. The act declares that the
jury may infer the intent to do ma
icious injury to the persons of the
citizens from the possession of
deadly weapon concealed upon the
person of the party accused, but
this can only be done where the
purpose is unexplained; and when
the jury are satisfied that the object
to be accomplished is defence against
threatened or apprehended violence
they are duty bound to acquit the
accused, or if the jury disregard the
duty and convict, the court will set
the verdict aside and discharge the
defendant. Now, whether the prin-
ciple be applied to the case of the
witness whose life had been
attacked, and who feared re-
petition of it or to q class of per-
sons similarly situated, the supreme
law of the land protects him and
them, and if there were an hundred
statutes to the contrary, they would
not be worth the paper they are
printed on, because they would call
in question that which the Bill of
Rights declares is beyond question,
and against which there can be no
law.
have thought it proper to say
his much upon the general princi-
pie, for the purpose of correcting
misrepresentation upon this subject,