The question recurs, does the act, "To suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," trench upon the constitutional rights of the citizen? We think not. The constitution in declaring that, "Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defence 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 of himself and the State." The terms in which this provision is phrased seems to us, necessarily to leave with the Legislature the authority to adopt such regulations of police, as may be dictated by the safety of the people and the advancement of public morals. The statute of 1 Wm. and M. while it declares the right of the subject, it refers to Parliament to determine what arms shall be borne and how; while our constitution being silent as to the action of the Legislature, does not divest it of a power over the subject, which pertained to it independent of an express grant.
We do not desire to be understood as maintaining, that in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of the Legislature has no other limit than its own discretion. A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly (p.617)unconstitutional. But a law which is intended merely to promote personal security, and to put down lawless aggression and violence, and to that end inhibits the wearing of certain weapons, in such a manner as is calculated to exert an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the wearer, by making him less regardful of the personal security of others, does not come in collision with the constitution.
The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly, or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution.
Whether the peculiar terms employed in the Kentucky constitution, viz: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms, &c. shall not be questioned," influenced to any extent, the conclusion of the court, that the right could not be regulated, but must remain as it was at the time of its adoption, we are not prepared to say. Yet we are strongly inclined to believe, that the inhibition to question the right, was regarded as more potent than a mere afirmative declaration, intended to secure it to the citizen; and that while the one amounted to a denial of the right to legislate on the subject, the other would tolerate legislation to any extent which did not actually or in its consequences destroy the right to bear arms.
THE STATE V. REID.
