Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1881-08-25
The Righ, to Bear Arms.
BY THOMAS CALLAHAN.

BY THOMAS CALLAHAN.
In obedience to the request of his
friend, Judge T. P. Russell, the writer
takes up this subject with view of
what can be done. IL any |
thing, to check the prevalent practice
of using firearms, especially by boys.
1t is generally supposed that the
right to bear arms is guaranteed by the
second amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, which says: IA
we'll regulated militia being necessary
to the security Of a free State, the right
Of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed."
The Supreme Court of the United
States, which alone has the power to ex-
pound the Constitution, has never pass
ed upon that amendment. so that we
are left to infer its scopeand design from
the expositions given by that court in
regard to other amendments.
Eminent jurists have expressed the
opinion that tits restrictive on both the
national and State Legislatures. Bish-
op, OIL "Ciimes," ;" takes this view. The
Supreme Court of Georgia, in Num- vs..
the State RI. Kelly, 243] agrees with
Bishop. The Supreme Court of Louisi-
ana, in the State vs.. Smith, the State
vs.. Chandler, and the State VS.. Jumel,
also adopts this view. The Supreme
Courtof Arkansas, in the State vs.. Buzz
zard, holds the same idea regarding the
amendment, as all assertion of that
general right of sovereignty belonging
to independent nations to regulate
their military force.
On the other side, the decisions Of the
Supreme Court of the United States, in
expou nding some of the earlier amend
ments to the Constitution, leave little
room to doubt that the first ten amend
ments are only restrictive on the Fed
eral power. Thus in Barrow VS.. the
City of Baltimore VII. Peters, 243-2o7]
it was held that an act of the Maryland
Legislature, which, it was alleged, de-
prived the plaintiff in error of his prop
erty, without just compensation, was
not void as being in conflict with the
fifth amendment of the Federal Con-
stitution. Chief-J ustice Marshall, de-
livering the unanimous judgment of
the court, said: "The question present.
ed is, we think, of great Importance,
but not of much difficulty. The Con-
loi, nj 70 io al
by the people of the United States
themselves for their own government,
and not tor the government Of the in
dividual States. Each State estab ablish-
ed a Constitution for itself, and in that
Constitution provided such limitations
and restrictions on the powers of its
particular government as its judgment
dictated. The people of the United
States framed such u government for
the United States as they supposed best
adapted to their situation, and best
calculated to promote their interests.
The power they conferred OH this Gov
ernment was to be exercised by itself,
and the Limitations OIL power, II ex-
pressed IN general terms, are naturally
and, We think, necessarily applicable
to- the government created by the in
strument. They are limitations OF
power granted in the instrument itself,
not of distinct governments framed by
different persons and for different pur-
poses."
Three things make this an exceed
ingly strong decision. First, 1t was
unanimous. Then, Chief-Justice Mar
shall was one Of the best jurists the
United States ever produced. And
lastly, he had been very prominent
member of the convention which franz
ed the Constitution, and 80 may be pre-
sumed to have we'll understood that
instrument.
The language quoted above would
be equally decisive if applied to any Of
the first ten commandments.
Again, in Fox vs. the State of Ohio
Howard, 410-4341 it is declared that
the prohibitions contained in the
amendments to the Federal Constitu-
ton "were not designed as limits upon
the State governments in reference to
their own citizens. They are exclu-
sively restrictions upon Federal power,
intended to prevent interference with
the rights of the States, and of their
citizens" "Such, indeed" said Mr..
Justice Daniel, in delivering the opin-
ion Of the court, ''is the only rational
and Ineligible Interpretation which
these amendments cen bear, since 1t is
neither probable nor credible that the
States should have anxiOusly insisted
to ingraft upon the Federal Constitu-
ton restrictions upon their own author
ity, restrictions which some OF the
States regarded as the sine qua non OF
its adoption by them."
So also it was held in Smith vs. the
State Of Maryland xxx. Howard,