indygyrene
Plinker
"Article 1, § 32, supra, does not say that the people shall have a right to bear pistols, or any other specific kind or type of arms." Justice Bobbitt, Matthews v State, 237 Ind. 677 (1958)
Matthews v. State :: 1958 :: Supreme Court of Indiana Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: Indiana Law :: US Law :: Justia
So, the same Indiana Supreme Court that has stated numerous times that the language of our Constitution is hammered into stone, and that each word has meaning, had changed the words AND meaning of Article 1-32, which clearly and plainly states, "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Our Indiana Constitution does NOT give the General ASSembly (GA) the 'police power' to regulate the RIGHT to bear ARMS. Indeed, our Indiana Constitition specifically nullifies any law generated by the State that does not draw its authority from our Constitution.
Article 1, § 25: "No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution."
So, since the Constitution does NOT give the GA the authority to regulate our rights under 1-32, how did the GA get this power? Further, why did Justice Bobbitt feel it was fine to alter the meaning of Section 32?
Let's look at an example of a state where their Constitution does indeed give their legislators the power to regulate their right to carry.
Illinois Constitution-Article 1, § 22: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now, you can see the difference in the language employed.
Looking forward to some commentary on this matter. The Matthews case is still being cited in modern gun cases.
Thanks for reading and replying.
Semper Fi
Matthews v. State :: 1958 :: Supreme Court of Indiana Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: Indiana Law :: US Law :: Justia
So, the same Indiana Supreme Court that has stated numerous times that the language of our Constitution is hammered into stone, and that each word has meaning, had changed the words AND meaning of Article 1-32, which clearly and plainly states, "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Our Indiana Constitution does NOT give the General ASSembly (GA) the 'police power' to regulate the RIGHT to bear ARMS. Indeed, our Indiana Constitition specifically nullifies any law generated by the State that does not draw its authority from our Constitution.
Article 1, § 25: "No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution."
So, since the Constitution does NOT give the GA the authority to regulate our rights under 1-32, how did the GA get this power? Further, why did Justice Bobbitt feel it was fine to alter the meaning of Section 32?
Let's look at an example of a state where their Constitution does indeed give their legislators the power to regulate their right to carry.
Illinois Constitution-Article 1, § 22: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now, you can see the difference in the language employed.
Looking forward to some commentary on this matter. The Matthews case is still being cited in modern gun cases.
Thanks for reading and replying.
Semper Fi