Page:State v. Buzzard.pdf/11

28

Rh

aware that this right has ever become the subject of any adjudication in the Federal courts, or that any of the State courts, in adjudicating upon it, have given any exposition of the article under consideration, or attempted to define the right as secured by it. It may therefore be considered as an open question; and being one of interest and importance, and as I conceive clearly within the cognizance of the Supreme Court of the United States, an adjudication of that Court upon it, by which the extent of the right may be distinctly ascertained and definitively settled, can be readily obtained, and the rule of decision in relation to it be made uniform throughout the Union.

I deem it only necessary to remark further, that the constitution of Alabama declares, that "every citizen has the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State." Yet the Supreme Court of that State, in the case of The State vs. Reid, ''Ala. Rep. 1 vol. new series, p.'' 612, has decided in favor of the validity of a law of that State, which inhibits the right of carrying about the person certain weapons concealed. The constitution of the State of Indiana also provides, "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ;" notwithstanding which, the Supreme Court of that State, in the case of The State vs. Mitchell, 3 ''Blacks. Rep.'' 229, has sustained a law of that State, in no respect essentially different from the enactment now in question. In Kentucky, and I believe in Tennessee also, the question has been decided against the validity of such enactments. A conflict between the decisions of the State courts in regard to the question, certainly exists; but so far as I am informed, the preponderance on either side is not very great.

I am therefore, after a careful and deliberate, consideration of the question, of the opinion that the enactment of the Legislature, above quoted, is in no wise repugnant either to the constitution of the United States or the constitution of this State, but is in every respect binding as a law of the land. Consequently, the Circuit Court erred in quashing the indictment, and thereupon discharging the defendant from the prosecution. And that judgment ought to be reversed.