Com. v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 22 May 1896 |
| Citation | 166 Mass. 171,44 N.E. 138 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. MURPHY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Gargan, P.M. Keating, and S.C. Brackett, for appellant.
John D McLaughlin, 2d Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
The defendant is complained of for belonging to and parading with a certain unauthorized body of men with arms, which said body of men had associated themselves together as a company and organization for drill and parade with firearms, in violation of St.1893, c. 367, § 124. He contends that this statute is in contravention of the seventeenth article of the declaration of rights, which declares that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense." This view cannot be supported. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense does not include the right to associate together as a military organization or to drill and parade with arms in cities and towns, unless authorized so to do by law. This is a matter affecting the public security, quiet, and good order, and it is within the police powers of the legislature to regulate the bearing of arms, so as to forbid such unauthorized drills and parades. Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264 265, 6 Sup.Ct. 580; Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120. The protection of a similar constitutional provision has often been sought by persons charged with carrying concealed weapons, and it has been almost universally held that the legislature may regulate and limit the mode of carrying arms. Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. 154; Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557; Haile v. State, 38 Ark. 564; English v. State, 35 Tex. 473; State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612; State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528; State v. Mitchell, 3 Blackf. 229; Bish.St. Crimes, § 793. The early decision to the contrary, of Bliss v. Com., 2 Litt. (Ky.) 90, has not been generally approved.
The defendant further contends that this statute, which mentions certain military bodies as exempt from its operation, is class legislation, which grants exclusive privileges to certain classes of citizens which are denied to the body of the people. It is not contended that the troops of the United States or the regularly organized militia of the commonwealth should be forbidden to drill and parade; but the argument is that the legislature has no power to single out other independent organizations, and give to them peculiar rights which it denies to others. But, in regulating drills and public parades, it is for the legislature to determine how far to go. No independent military company has a constitutional right to parade with arms in our cities and towns, and the granting of this privilege to certain enumerated organizations does not carry with it the same privilege to all others. It is within the power of the legislature to determine, in reference to such independent organizations, which of them may, and which of them may not associate together and organize for drill and parade with firearms. No decision has been cited to us which intimates the contrary. The granting to certain persons of special privileges of this kind, which do not interfere with the rights of others, is not open to objection on constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial