The State of the 2nd Amendment (Art. I, Sec. 32) in 1958

[cobber]

Check out the dissent in this case. Covers all the bases.

Defendant challenged the constitutionality of Indiana's requirement to possess a LTCH. Never mind that he was also charged with attempted murder. The Chief Justice took exception to the statute on licensing. My apologies if this has been addressed previously.

Matthews v. State, 237 Ind. 677 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Matthews v. State, 237 Ind. 677, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

For example:

Since 1816 this State has gotten along very well maintaining law and order under the various statutes prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, while at the same time the owners of pistols had the right to take them hunting or target shooting unconcealed without a permit and without being branded as a criminal. The 1925 Firearms Act (ch. 207, Acts 1925) did not prevent carrying unconcealed pistols, and under it the crime rate for crimes of violence was less than it has been under the 1935 Uniform Act. The effect of such unconstitutional regulation as prescribed by the latter Act has always been to disarm the law-abiding citizen, while the criminal pays no attention to the law. Such legislation really provides greater security for the outlaw.

or

Nor can it be maintained that the right to bear arms only protects the use of muskets, muzzle-loading rifles, shotguns and pistols, because they were the only ones used by the Colonists at the time. It might as well be argued that only a house of the architectural vintage of the Revolution would be protected against a present unreasonable search and seizure. Modern guns suitable for hunting and defense are within the protection of our Bill of Rights just the same as the owner of a modern ranch house type home is protected against unlawful searches.

or

For 119 years there was no legislative attempt to abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms as the term was understood in 1816 and at the time of the American Revolution. For 104 years the Legislature never considered the bearing of arms unconcealed could be made a crime. It is not for this court to substitute its judgment for that of the Forefathers as to what the Constitution should protect, or to indulge in Constitution making under the guise of judicial construction. The philosophy that the end justifies the means can only result in the progressive destruction of constitutional liberties. Many more convictions could be obtained if courts would construe away the protection against self-incrimination and unreasonable searches, but Bills of Rights were adopted to protect the individual against oppression by his Government, whether he be guilty or innocent. If the courts ignore well-settled precedents for the construction of constitutional rights, they become government by judges and not by law. If the constitutional safeguards are to be diminished, it should be done by constitutional amendment, and not by validating legislation that contravenes what the Forefathers and the people made the supreme law of this State.

 

[cobber]

But see this for justification of increased handgun regulation with the Uniform Firearms Act (of 1935?):

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2819&context=jclc