Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-02-22
LOCO LAWS.
OUR CHA COUNTY CORRESPONDENT
 SHOWS THEIR WEAKNESSES.
The Vicious Benefited by a Misnamed Law--The Rights of the People In- Vaded--LOcal Matters and Words of Encourage
 ment.
GLOBE. Feb, 4th, 1890.

EDITOR ENTERPRISE :-1ne ume Tor another election is drawing near and it now becomes the duty of the people to begin to consider who are compet- ent men to whom may be entrusted our public concerns. During the last campaign, 1 remember how the Four teenth Legislature was made the sub- ject of much public comment, and am sorry to say that most of that com ment was unjust and calculated to diminish the amount of public ad- miration which that body so justly merited 1 have waited in vain for public criticisms of the Fifteenth, and now desire to propose some myself.
 But, before l proceed further, wish it understood that believe those men were conscientious in their legislative acts, yet they seemed not to under stand the wishes of the people and the manner in which laws should be guarded so that they could not be made the instruments of public cor ruption.
 It will be remembered that the Re- publicans in convention assembled at Tucson, pronounced the certification of many of the laws, wholly unauthor- ized by law, which it was presumed the Fifteenth would correct. That the Code was in same respects ob- jectiOnable, I will not attempt to deny, but state upon positive proof that the Fifteenth left its most objection able features unchanged, and enacted new laws which are discreditable to any body of men claiming for them selves any pretentions to statesman ship.
 As l intend to write several letters on this subject I will confine myself from this point Gin this letter. to only one of their enactments.
 On March 18th, 1889, ,..the Governor approved an Act "Deining and pun ishing certain offenses against the public peace." The title of this bill is good and is to be approved by every peace-loving citizen. Not so however with the context. It prohibits the carrying of any "weapon manufactured and sold for the purposes of ofiense or defense" under penalty of a fine of not less than $25 nor more than one hundred dollars and in case the act is done in public assemblage the fine would be not less than fifty or more than five hundred dollars, together with a forfeiture of the weapon in either instance.
 Now the principal objection to this law is that it tends to deny the people that personal liberty which is so dear to every American. The true intent of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights of Arizona is to grant to every individual, absolute personal liberty, so long as he does trespass upon the rights of others. Now, simply carrying weapons can not be looked upon as tIespass upon the rights of others, and to prohibit one from carrying them for his own defense is trespass upon his per sonal rrght. As rule an honest man carries arms only for the protection of the persons of himself and family and for the protection of his property. A rogue, on the other hand, carries them to enable him to commit unlawfulness with greater safety 10 himself than he could without their aid. There is point which I do not wish to pass un- observed. When a villain undertakes the commission of an assault, a rob bery or a murder, does any sane man suppose he will stop to regard this law when he cares not what the law says in regard to the crime he is about to commit? And again-does any one wish to presume that man, no matter how law-abiding he may be, will stop to regard this law, when he has q reasonable suspicion that his person or property is in danger of the attacks of ruftians?
 Suppose an honest and peaceable man who is fallen upon by Fuftians with murderous intent, draws a revolver and puts to rout the villains who dared to attempt his life: is it right that he should be called into court to answer a charge of violating law prohibiting him the right of self defense?
 Mir. Editor it is by means of weap- ons and weapons only that we can defend ourselves against the immediate attacks of outlawry and every law pro- hibiting the citizen this right of de- fense is an act in favor of the outlaw, Besides the Bill of Rights plainly de- clares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own de- fense and that of the government shall not be infringed"
 Now that l have denied tue justice of this law desire to say in conclu- sion, that l care not how severe Is the punishment for the abuse of this per sonal right which I desire to see re- tained for the people. I believe when a person commits violence with the aid of a weapon, which he could not otherwise have committed, he should be severely punished But so long as we claim the inheritance of that per sonal and national freedom, an inde- pendence for which our Revolutionary Fathers struggled 80 hard; let us avoid all statutory enactments which touch or impair those liberties.
 In subsequent letters I purpose to mention other acts of the 18th and then leave the people to judge whether they are competent men to succeed | themselves.
 I am greatly pleased at the manner in which you conduct your paper Your editorials and the principle oi soliciting and encouraging contribu- tions from your subscribers can have no other than the best of effects upon
 the minds of your readers, As rule our people do not mutually discuss pnblic matters enough-but when
 they see in the paper something from
 the pen of their neighbor they natur
 ally begin to think for themselves and
 in many instances use the newspaper
 as a medium through which they, too
 can communicate their thoughts tl
 the public. By this means we learr
 from some of our best men who other
 wise would remain silent.
 l desire to congratulate Samue
 Hughes and A. P. k. Stafford (usin,
 THE ENTERPRISE for Q medium) fn
 their able articles and the good sense
 they are suggesting to the people O
 Arizona. Since MT. Safford's last let
 ter, his vilitiers must feel quite smal
 indeedl
 Why does not some one from Tue