City of Salina v. Blaksley
| Decision Date | 11 November 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,375 |
| Citation | 72 Kan. 230,83 P. 619 |
| Parties | CITY OF SALINA v. JAMES BLAKSLEY |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided. July, 1905.
Appeal from Saline district court; ROLLIN R. REES, judge.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- Right to Bear Arms. Section 4 of the bill of rights, which provides that "the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security," is a limitation on legislative power to enact laws prohibiting the bearing of arms in the militia or any other military organization provided for by law, but is not a limitation on legislative power to enact laws prohibiting and punishing the promiscuous carrying of arms or other deadly weapons.
R. A Lovitt, for appellee.
David Ritchie, for appellant.
OPINION
James Blaksley was convicted in the police court of the city of Salina, a city of the second class, of carrying a revolving pistol within the city while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed to the district court, where he was again convicted, and this proceeding is prosecuted to reverse the judgment of the latter court. The question presented is the constitutionality of section 1003 of the General Statutes of 1901, which reads:
"The council may prohibit and punish the carrying of firearms or other deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise, and may arrest and imprison, fine or set at work all vagrants and persons found in said city without visible means of support, or some legitimate business."
Section 4 of the bill of rights is as follows:
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
The contention is that this section of the bill of rights is a constitutional inhibition upon the power of the legislature to prohibit the individual from having and carrying arms, and that section 1003 of the General Statutes of 1901 is an attempt to deprive him of the right guaranteed by the bill of rights, and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void. The power of the legislature to prohibit or regulate the carrying of deadly weapons has been the subject of much dispute in the courts. The views expressed in the decisions are not uniform, and the reasonings of the different courts vary. It has, however, been generally held that the legislatures can regulate the mode of carrying deadly weapons, provided they are not such as are ordinarily used in civilized warfare.
To this view there is a notable exception in the early case of Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. 90, 2 Littell (Ky.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251, where it was held, under a constitutional provision similar to ours, that the act of the legislature prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons was void; that the right of the citizen to own and carry arms was protected by the constitution and could not be taken away or regulated. While this decision has frequently been referred to by the courts of other states, it has never been followed. The same principle was announced in In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609, 101 Am. St. Rep. 215, but no reference was made to Bliss v. Commonwealth nor to any other authority in support of the decision.
In view of the disagreements in the reasonings of the different courts by which they reached conflicting conclusions, we prefer to treat the question as an original one. The provision in section 4 of the bill of rights that "the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security" refers to the people as a collective body. It was the safety and security of society that were being considered when this provision was put into our constitution. It is followed immediately by the declaration that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty and should not be tolerated, and that "the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." It deals exclusively with the military individual rights are not considered in this section. The manner in which the people shall exercise this right of bearing arms for the defense and security of the people is found in article 8 of the constitution, which authorizes the organizing, equipping and disciplining of the militia, which shall be composed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foster
...adopt ordinance more restrictive than state law that prohibited person from openly carrying a firearm in the city); Salina v. Blaksley , 72 Kan. 230, 232-34, 83 P. 619 (1905) (holding city of Salina could prohibit a person who was intoxicated from carrying a revolver within the city limits ......
-
Seegars v. Ashcroft
...and Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 17 S.Ct. 326, 41 L.Ed. 715 (1897), the Supreme Court of Kansas' opinion in Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619 (1905), the Supreme Court of Tennessee's opinion in Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hum.) 154, 1840 WL 1554 (1840), the Supreme Court o......
-
Burton v. Sills
...Presser v. Illinois, supra, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615; Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 120 (1879); City of Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619, 3 L.R.A.,N.S., 168 (1905); Biffer v. City of Chicago, 278 Ill. 562, 116 N.E. 182 Long before the enactment of its recent Law (L.1966,......
-
State v. Schelin
...to the people as a whole are generally construed as conferring only a collective right to bear arms. See, e.g., City of Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619, 620 (1905) (construing a provision guaranteeing "`that the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security'" ......