In the end, the court reversed his conviction on a narrow basis. However, the court indicated that if a defendent came before it who was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, they would find the law unconstitutional. Apparently that never happened.
Judge Joseph Henry Lumpkin wrote the court's opinion. It's long but worth reading. This passage in particular should be engraved in marble:
I don't know about "the acquisition of Texas," but I'll cut the judge some slack.Judge Lumpkin wrote:"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardw ... _state.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Jim