The Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1877-1885, 1881-11-02
PLEA FOR THE HIP POCKET.

EDITOR OF THE ARGUs.-There is 8
strange popularity about the arguments of
those who deny the uncOnstitutionality of
these laws. If the reader will remember
nearly all the petty advocates Of them go
to great deal of trouble to explain that
the constitution says nothing concerning
the mode of bearing arms. OF course noti
The authors of that document did not sup
pose any American legislation would be
ldiotic or knavish enough to invent the
plea of concealment. They had a higher
opinion of human nature than they would
have had, had they lived till now. They
were honest men themselves and meant
what they said, and naturally supposed
future legislators would do them the credit
of SO believing, And when they said a
certain right should not be ihtranged, they
considered that language plain enough for
any honest purpose. The word infringe
ment" means to interfere with or to tres
pass upon, and if to prescribe the manner
in which man shall use a certain privilege
be not an Infringement Of that privilege,
then.no word can have definite meaning.
The constitution shall declare that the
right of American citizens to wear shirts
shall not be infringed." A law which
should declare that no man shall wear
shirt except outside of his overcoat, would,
l venture to assert, be considered ridicu-
lousy unconstitutional, even by the oppo
nents of concealed weapons.
The spontaneous public opinion of the
United States is the best interpreter of the
meaning of the constitution, for our people
are so thoroughly imbued with the spirit
of freedom which actuatcd the Fathers.
They instinctively think the same thoughts,
and have the same feelings in regard to its
principles of government, aud the public
opinion of our people is unanimously in
favor Of concealed weapons. TiInid men
and nervous women may perhaps offer fee
BILE objections, but the majority of our
male citizens, if their opinion was asked,
would emphatically reply that the hip
pocket shonld be maintained. I doubt if
there are ten men in Rock Island at this
moment, who have not at some period of
their lives carried concealed weapons, and
would not instinctively resent any intima-
ton that they had not q perfect right to
do SO.
To the carful observation of this law
there is, viewing it only by itself, some
thing outrageously absurd about it. Pro
Tossing to have no design whatever on the
right of bearing arms per Sc, but only on
theirconcealment, it logically develops it
self. The law-any law--implies the pos
sibility of proving the guilt of the suppos
ed violation thereof, but, if weapon be
concealed, who can prove person carries
such? There is no law authorizing pro-
miscuous exploration of mems pockets, and
it is only when the pistol, for the laws
are really aimed at pistols alone) is drawn
from the pocket that proof can be obtain
ed. But then the laws fall to the ground
because the weapon is no longer concealed
Under these laws, if a person should be
arrested for carrying concealed weapons,
and pistol should be taken from his
pocket in full court, he might logically de-
mand acquittal, because all that could be
proved against him would be that, at a GER
tain period in the past, more or less dis
tant, he had carried a concealed weopon.
This is not crime which can be pun
ished at any time like theft or murder the
perpetrators of which may be arrested at
any future period. A man committing q /
theft this year, may, if discovered be arrested
next year, not for stealing but for having
stolen. But if every person in this city |
who has carried weapon month or a |
year ago could be arrested therefore. It |
would become hhe duty of the proseeut-
ing attorney to arrest en- nsasSe every liable |
male white citizen he met upon the street,
for it is ridiculous to suppose there is a
man among US who has not at some period I
carried a weapon. The absurdity, how
ever, of arresting man who could be
proved to have put pistol into his pocket
! year ago, would be so potent that any
Judge or jury would dismiss the case at
once, if cajoled into admitting it into court
It ALL IL then, the past tense millifies the
rhine every attempt at prosecution for this
,ffense must logically fall to the ground.
because no proof can be adduced until the
Weapon is brought to light, and then the
;oneealment thereof being relegated to the
last is beyond this jurisdiction of the Law. !