The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-03-09

lHE lCucIdI CONSTITUTION uCCldISb
that the "people" shall have the
right to keep and to bear arms, and
this has given origin to the rather
strained opinion that constitu-
tional right is infringed when law
is made regulating the carrying
IL arms. Such law is on
the Texas statute books, and
il may be interesting to know that
the -upreme court of Missouri has
ttely had a case before it, involving
the constitutionality of the arms
I,w in that state. The st. Louis
Republican comments upon the de-
ojsion in this wise:
IL mas been held by some that the
CiauSe in the federal constitution ::
"Ihe right of the people to keep
6ud bear arms shall not be i'll
fr nged," was violated by these stat
Ilus, and the supreme court of Ken
turky, III a case brought before it
under a similar statute, took this
view of the question. So did the
Supreme court of Tennessee. But in
eral other states. southern and
northern, il has been held that
such statutes as we have enacted
not an Infringement of the fed
C:ll constitutiOn-since they are
r. ,ilatory rather than prohibitOry
--.Hd cur supreme court cOncurs III
| more reasonable opinion. 1t is
-siauge that the absurd Kentucky
, ..ocbrine should receive even re-
-rrctful consideration at this day.
nc federal constitutional provision
y - wise one when it was adopted,
curly hundred years ago, and it is
Uuobjeclionable at this day. But
j IS plain and obvious meaning has
| been perverted. 1t does not say the
hight of persons to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed, but
Tie right of the people; and it is a
fragrant distortion of this broad
| guaranty of the right of the mass OF
t sc people, or bodies of them, to
| keep arms in their houses and bear
them openly i'll defense of their lib
critics aud lives, to say that it in
vests every ruffian and seeker OF
O arrels with an inalienable ,privi-
ltge to make himself terror to the
| peaceful community in which he
| Ewes. Four out of every five homi-
cides committed i'll this state are the
result of this depraved and savage
practice. Now that the supreme
court has given its decision on this
disputed point and affirmed the
validity of the statutes, it remains
only for officials to enforce them
with intolerant rigOr. Society and
the cause of civilization in Missouri
have nothing to fear from the break
ing up of the habit ; OH the contrary,
they have everything to gain"
Such law is evil only in its vio-
lation, and could the statute be
fully enforced in this state, the good
derived from it would be incalcula-
BILE. Certainly states have the right
TO regulate the bearing of arms as
applied individually, and the con-
stitutiOnal provision never was in
tended to apply except in
a public sense for the pub
lie good. The constitution
makers never dreamed of a fellow
going around with an armory on
his person, seeking, under the in
fluence of whisky, probably, whom
he might destroy. The provision
was intended purely in a militia
sense, and every state has the right
to pass such law. 1t is argued by
some that there are so many pock-
cts on the hip that it is positively
necessary for peaceably disposed
citizens to carry arsenals. There
fore it becomes necessary
more than ever 80 have the law en-
forced. Judges should make les
son of officers who fail to enforce
the arms statute, and there should
be every encouragement given to
officers to diligently perform their
duty in the premises. There has
been world of improvement in
Texas in the matter of practice with
deadly weapons, but this is but a
just reason why we should do all in
toar power to thoroughly eradicate
the evil practice.