State v. Rosenthal
| Decision Date | 30 May 1903 |
| Citation | 55 A. 610,75 Vt. 295 |
| Parties | STATE v. ANDREW ROSENTHAL |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
May Term, 1903.
COMPLAINT for violation of an ordinance of the City of Rutland. Heard on respondent's demurrer to the complaint in the Municipal Court of that city, Howe, Judge. Demurrer overruled pro forma, and complaint adjudged sufficient. The respondent excepted.
Judgment reversed, and sentence set aside, demurrer sustained, complaint adjudged insufficient and quashed, the respondent discharged and let go without day.
Joel C. Baker for the respondent.
Present TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, STAFFORD and HASELTON, JJ.
Section 10 of the ordinances of the city of Rutland provides that no person shall carry within the city any steel or brass knuckles, pistol, slung-shot, stiletto, or weapon of similar character, nor carry any weapon concealed on his person, without permission of the mayor or chief of police in writing, and for a violation thereof a penalty is provided by a subsequent section.
A complaint was filed against the respondent, in the City Court, for carrying within the city, in violation of said ordinance, a pistol loaded with powder and bullets, concealed on his person, without such permission.
On demurrer to the complaint, the respondent contends, among other things, that said ordinance is illegal, for that, so far as it forbids the carrying of a pistol, it is repugnant to and inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws of this State.
Section 24 of the city charter gives the city council power to make, establish, alter, amend, or repeal ordinances, regulations and by-laws, not inconsistent with the charter or with the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State, for the purposes enumerated, and to inflict as a penalty for a violation thereof, a fine not exceeding fifty dollars. After the special designations, is the general clause, "And said city council may make and establish, and the same alter, amend or repeal, any other by-laws, rules and ordinances which they deem necessary for the well being of said city and not repugnant to the Constitution or laws of this State."
Power to make the ordinance in question was not expressly given to the council, and they had no power to make it, beyond what is given under the general clause above quoted.
The people of the State have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. Const. c. 1, Art. 16. But by V S. 4922, a person is prohibited from carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, unless he does it with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man; and by section 4923, no person can carry or have in his possession any fire-arm, dirk knife, bowie knife, dagger or other dangerous or deadly weapon, while a member of, and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Christian
...firearms within “limits or confines of any city, town or village” violated state constitutional right to bear arms); State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 55 A. 610, 610 (1903) (law banning carrying of pistols within city limits, without first obtaining a discretionary permit issued by city offic......
-
State ex rel. City of Princeton v. Buckner
...(1980) (statute prohibiting possession of billy club in home unconstitutional infringement of right to bear arms); State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 299, 55 A. 610, 611 (1903) (ordinance prohibiting carrying dangerous concealed weapon without written permission of mayor or police chief The la......
-
State v. Misch
...Article 16.2. Vermont Case Law ¶ 32. In this Court's history, we have relied on Article 16 only twice: in State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295, 297, 55 A. 610, 610 (1903) and State v. Duranleau, 128 Vt. 206, 210, 260 A.2d 383, 386 (1969), superseded by rule on other grounds, V.R.A.P. 5(b), as rec......
-
The State v. Keet
... ... conduct." ... A claim ... so boldly made should be squarely met. We have been able to ... find but two cases in the Union holding a law ... unconstitutional because it prohibited the carrying of ... concealed weapons. In State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt ... 295, 55 A. 610, a city ordinance against carrying concealed ... weapons was held contrary to the constitution of that state ... which provided that "the people have the right to bear ... arms for the defense of themselves and of the State." ... There is nothing said in that ... ...
-
Ruminations
...Vt. 22, 23 (1908). 40. Cookv. Howland, 74 Vt. 393 (1902). 41. State v. Shedroi, 75 Vt. 277 (1903). 42. Id. at 282. 43. State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295 (1903). 44. State v. Scampini, 77 Vt. 92 (1904). 45. Id. at 122. 46. Davis v. Moyles, 76 Vt. 25 (1903). Chipman's decision in Paine and Morri......