Matthews v State, 237 Ind. 677 (1958)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • indygyrene

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 27, 2017
    5
    1
    Indianapolis
    "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
     

    04FXSTS

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 31, 2010
    1,789
    129
    Eugene
    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."

    Once again the state of Illinois is good for something, a bad example. Jim.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    First, where is this written?
    So, the same Indiana Supreme Court that has stated numerous times that the language of our Constitution is hammered into stone....

    The stone part. Where has the ISC stated that?

    Second, did you read the other citations in that section. For as long as Indiana has been a state, the courts have interpreted various constitutional provisions to allow the regulation of firearms generally, and pistols specifically. One of the earliest cases on this topic allowed regulation of pistols based on whether someone was a "traveler."

    The dissent covers the historical part of it.
    It was early held that the 1831 statute prohibiting anyone except travelers from wearing or carrying concealed weapons was constitutional. State v. Mitchell (1833), 3 Blackf. 229.

    IMHO, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Indiana's system is a good (although perhaps not "perfect") balance of individual rights and government regulation. Constitutional carry is really the only place improvement can be made, IMHO. (Although I'm open to other ideas for improvement.)
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    IMHO, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Indiana's system is a good (although perhaps not "perfect") balance of individual rights and government regulation. Constitutional carry is really the only place improvement can be made, IMHO. (Although I'm open to other ideas for improvement.)

    Oh, hi, I just happen to be ambling by and see that you are requesting gun law ideas. I just happen to have . . . dozens.:D
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    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.

    indygyr, the issue is the standard of review. Matthews, from 1958, applied rational basis. We need strict scrutiny.

    See if this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_review
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Oh, hi, I just happen to be ambling by and see that you are requesting gun law ideas. I just happen to have . . . dozens.:D

    haha

    Ok. This might be the right thread.

    After Constitutional Carry, what are your next top 3? Honestly curious. Having subscribed to your internet newsletter (that is, INGO), I have an idea, but am also curious about how you would prioritize them. :)

    Oh, and... the "written in stone" soundbite. Is that a thing? I'll admit to skimming some appellate opinions over the years, but I think something like that would've stuck out.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    haha

    Ok. This might be the right thread.

    After Constitutional Carry, what are your next top 3? Honestly curious. Having subscribed to your internet newsletter (that is, INGO), I have an idea, but am also curious about how you would prioritize them. :)

    Oh, and... the "written in stone" soundbite. Is that a thing? I'll admit to skimming some appellate opinions over the years, but I think something like that would've stuck out.

    Ok, only 3, huh?

    I put these three at the top the Freeman Action Agenda:

    1. Training (tuition, lodging, ammo, travel) expenses and gun safes above the line tax deductions.

    2. Firearms class before one may obtain DL in Indiana.

    3. Amend preemption statute to make politicians personally responsible for civil litigation associated with defending illegal ordinances, no more making the taxpayers carry the pack.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Ok, only 3, huh?
    The slaking of my thirst for Freeman Action Items is rendered in sips, not gulps. ;)

    I put these three at the top the Freeman Action Agenda:

    1. Training (tuition, lodging, ammo, travel) expenses and gun safes above the line tax deductions.
    I'm down with that, as long as such training is not mandatory.

    2. Firearms class before one may obtain DL in Indiana.
    Oops. :D

    Well, I like the idea in theory - more firearms education is a good thing.

    But, I really don't like the idea of state-mandated training for "social" things that aren't related to a discrete purpose. So we want to be members of the bar? State mandated training to replace plumbing fixtures before sitting for the bar exam.

    By the way, I also am against mandated training to obtain LTCHs. It is indentured studenthood and a state subsidy of firearms trainers.

    3. Amend preemption statute to make politicians personally responsible for civil litigation associated with defending illegal ordinances, no more making the taxpayers carry the pack.
    Why do you hate insurance?
     

    indygyrene

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 27, 2017
    5
    1
    Indianapolis
    indygyr, the issue is the standard of review. Matthews, from 1958, applied rational basis. We need strict scrutiny.

    See if this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_review

    Hello Kirk. Thanks for the link. Yes, I've always believed in Black Letter Law, and strict scrutiny/interpretation. Further, if the General ASSembly can regulate on areas that are clearly out of bounds (per Constitutional language), then why do many states have language such as Illinois, that expressly allows their legislators to regulate. Crazy stuff. Still wondering why Bobbitt tried to qualify the language of Section 32?
     

    indygyrene

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 27, 2017
    5
    1
    Indianapolis
    Hello T Lex. Thanks for the reply. Yes, I've read Matthews, more than once. I'm quite certain that I've seen the "stone" quote before. I've found this quote from 1974. I have not read this case since 2003. It concerned Indiana Constitution, Article 8 (Common Schools) and book rental fees.

    Chandler v. South Bend Community School Corp. 312 N.E.2d 915 (1974)
    In addressing the interpretation of Article 8, Section 1 proposed by Miss Chandler, we are bound by established doctrines of constitutional construction. A fundamental canon of construction requires that we presume each word of the Constitution was carefully chosen and intentionally placed, "... as though it had been hammered into the instrument." Chadwick v. City of Crawfordsville (1940), 216 Ind. 399, 409, 24 N.E.2d 937, 942; see also Allen v. VanBuren Township (1962), 243 Ind. 665, 184 N.E.2d 25. As a corollary to that rule, words employed in the Constitution are generally given their ordinary meaning, unless it affirmatively appears from the entire wording of the instrument that a contrary meaning was intended. Ellwanger v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 307, 180 N.E. 287.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Hello Kirk. Thanks for the link. Yes, I've always believed in Black Letter Law, and strict scrutiny/interpretation. Further, if the General ASSembly can regulate on areas that are clearly out of bounds (per Constitutional language), then why do many states have language such as Illinois, that expressly allows their legislators to regulate. Crazy stuff. Still wondering why Bobbitt tried to qualify the language of Section 32?

    Can I tell your about Mayor Daley?:D

    Illinois changed their Constitution to allow Daley to impose gun control on the African-Americans in Chicago.

    Why? Racism.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    I'm down with that, as long as such training is not mandatory

    No, training is not mandatory.

    But, I really don't like the idea of state-mandated training for "social" things that aren't related to a discrete purpose. So we want to be members of the bar? State mandated training to replace plumbing fixtures before sitting for the bar exam.

    Seizing control of the social chokepoints is the key to victory. There are two logical chokepoints that we can attack--high school graduation and getting a driver's license.

    Mandatory firearms training for graduating high school. Mandatory firearms training for DL. Two huge opportunities to change the culture in our favor.

    Why do you hate insurance?

    Because it diffuses the responsibility that politicians must accept. Make them, not the taxpayers, responsible for violating the law.

    Look at what I am going through by filing a FOIA and having the false accusations made about me because of my FOIA about the phony courtroom and its impact on carrying guns here. She would have never made the fake accusation about me if she knew she was going to be personally responsible.
     
    Last edited:

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    No, training is not mandatory....

    Mandatory firearms training for graduating high school. Mandatory firearms training for DL. Two huge opportunities to change the culture in our favor.

    :D

    Ok. First, I know what you mean. Second, though, it just looks funny in print.

    In terms of HS curriculum, I'm a fan of statewide standards, but local curriculum to achieve it. (With the state providing resources for poorer school districts.) There are plenty of private opportunities for firearm familiarity training (including family) such that I don't see a need to do it in school.

    And, to summarize, since it isn't related to driving, I don't see it as appropriate to include it with DL requirements.

    But fundamentally, I agree that more should be done to familiarize kids with proper firearm risk management.

    Because it diffuses the responsibility that politicians must accept. Make them, not the taxpayers, responsible for violating the law.
    Do all your clients knowingly break the law? Wait. Don't answer that. ;)

    From the other side of that municipal desk, there are byzantine laws with unclear boundaries. Assigning personal liability is a non-starter for someone acting in their official capacity.

    Look at what I am going through by filing a FOIA and having the false accusations made about me because of my FOIA about the phony courtroom and its impact on carrying guns here. She would have never made the fake accusation about me if she knew she was going to be personally responsible.
    I hate to be the one to break it to you, but: a) she probably would have; and, b) her making the fake accusation already has personal liability if it defamed you. If it didn't, then there's no liability anyway.
     

    87iroc

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Dec 25, 2012
    3,437
    48
    Bartholomew County
    haha

    Ok. This might be the right thread.

    After Constitutional Carry, what are your next top 3? Honestly curious. Having subscribed to your internet newsletter (that is, INGO), I have an idea, but am also curious about how you would prioritize them. :)

    Oh, and... the "written in stone" soundbite. Is that a thing? I'll admit to skimming some appellate opinions over the years, but I think something like that would've stuck out.

    I personally think after CC is passed(hopefully)...we should start chiseling away at gun free zones. Any state funded/owned institution does not have the right to ban firearms on campus is the big one in my mind.

    Get rid of ban inside school buildings

    Get rid of ban at state fair(I will be there Saturday....hate the fact I can't carry).
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Yeah, GFZs should be next. This may be a bit controversial here, but I would even go so far as to say that a business open to the public should not be able to create a semi-GFZ. Simon malls should not be able to threaten to trespass someone simply for having a firearm.

    Would not apply to non-public businesses (so, any individual office in a building) or to private dwellings.
     
    Top Bottom