Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1881-08-25

Howard, $780, and in Twichell vs.
the Commonwealth, GVII. Wall, 32l],
equally decisive Language, by the same
court swill be found.
In view of these decisions of the Su- |
preme Court Of the United States, there |
can remain but little doubt that II the
question should come up before that
court, it would hold that the second |
amendment of the Federal Constition |
is restrictive upon the General Govern |
ment merely, and not upon the States;
and that every State has power to reg
ulate the bearing of arms in such man.
ner as it may see fit, or to prohibit 1t
altogether.
Inasmuch az the legislation of one
State is not binding on another, all the
conflicting decisions of the various Su-
preme Courts are set aside, except as
they are indications Of the general drift
of Jurisprudence on this subject, and 1t
is only necessary to consider the status
Of Missouri in the matter.
And here there Is an advance In the
right direction. Under the preceding
Constitution the right to carry arms
was practically unlimited. This may
have arisen from the fact that in Mis-
souri, at the close of the war, about all
the rights any man had were those
that were within rifle range.
The present Constitution holds the
following language: Art. 2, Sec. II
That the rightof no citizen to keep and
bear arms in defence Of his home, per-
son and property, or in aid Of the civil
power, when thereto legally summon
ed, shall be called into question, but
nothing herein contained ia intended
to justify the practice Of wearing con-
cealed weapons.
Under this we have an exceedingly
stringent statute, passed In 1874, and
amended in 1875, in 1877, and In 1879.
1t covers as nearly as may. all possible
cases, and forbids, under heavy PEN
atty, the carrying of any weapon.
either concealed or openly.
A man who is moving, or is on q
journey, can carry them ON the road,
but cannot take them into any place Of
public resort.
A man can carry arms to militia
muster, or civil ofiicer can carry them.
When q man Is in danger Of great
great bodily harm, the fact can be sd-
duced as a defense against an indict-
ment for carrying weapons.
So far as known to the writer, the
Supreme Court of the State has never
passed upon this statute, but careful
examination of it, and comparison Of
it with the Constitution, will demon
strate that it is only u statute against
carrying concealed weapons. The writ
er is aware that this is not the general
ly received idea, but that makes little
difference. The body Of the offense
specified by the statute consists in hav-
ing or carrying any weapon concealed
upon or about the person.
Before carrying a weapon openly can
be indictable under that statute, the
word "or" must come in between the
words concealed" and upon or about
the person." AS the statute stands, the
words last mentioned merely indicate
the place Of concealment that makes
the act of carrying indictable. And
the introduction of the word cor" after
the word concealed" will require the
word "either" before it, 30 that the
statute would have to read: ANY per-
son who shall carry any weapon either
concealed or aboutor upon his person."
Just that aud nothing more. And that
is all it can be under the Constitution Of
the State, which specifies that the right
to bear arms for specified purposes
SHALL NOT BE CALLED IN QUESTION.
No stronger language could be used.
The right of self-defense IL one form Of
the right to life, which il inalienable; n
man cannot divest himself Of 1t, and the
Constitution presulnes that those who
propose to destroy mans life or home
or property, do not always give him
give him notice Of their intention so to
do; he must then have the legal right
to be always ready for defense to the
uttermost, at any moment, or with any
weapon he can demand. The Consti-
tuition gives . man the right Of self-de-
fense with any weapon, and makes IL
his duty and will punish him II he does
not carry his weapons openly--that Is,
In the best possible position for reaching
them-and using them with the graf
est readiness and effect.
If the right Of all citizens to keep and
bear arms for the purposes and in the
cases specified cannot be called In ques-
ton. 1t is both legally and morally Ger
tain that no law can be passed under
the Constitution impairing that right.
much less law prohibiting It.
II the existing statute has the pow
ers claimed for It, both Of those things
are done by it.