Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
From the same court decision that gave us:
I would point out that Reid was at the time a sheriff, and had the power to arrest and imprison lawbreakers, and yet he felt he needed to carry a concealed weapon to defend himself. The Supreme Court put paid to that idea when they said:
From the same court decision that gave us:
I give you:Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defense.
Please discuss your views on the above and whether you think this is in defense of or opposition to every-day open carry.The constitution in declaring that, "Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defence[sic] of himself and the State," has neither expressly nor by implication, denied to the Legislature, the right to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne. The right guarantied to the citizen, is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places, but merely "in defence[sic] of himself and the State." (emphasis added)
I would point out that Reid was at the time a sheriff, and had the power to arrest and imprison lawbreakers, and yet he felt he needed to carry a concealed weapon to defend himself. The Supreme Court put paid to that idea when they said:
But in the present case, no such necessity seems to have existed; and we cannot well conceive of its[the need to conceal a weapon] existence under any supposable circumstances.