State v. Buzzard

State v. Buzzard
State v. Buzzard
Court	Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided	1842

Last updated April 07, 2024

State v. Buzzard is an 1842 case determined by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in which the defendant Buzzard was charged with violating an Arkansas State law that prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons. He claimed that this law infringed upon his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms enumerated in the Second Amendment. Arkansas Trial Court struck down the state law so the state appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. A majority held that the sole intent of the Second Amendment was for the States to have a militia to protect themselves against a national army that could infiltrate and overthrow them. In its view because of this original intent it was never meant to apply as a right granted to individuals.

Legal question

Does Arkansas state law regarding the illegal carrying of a concealed weapon infringe on citizens Second Amendment rights? Does this Arkansas state law that made illegal the carrying of a concealed weapon infringe on citizens Second Amendment rights?

Decision of the court

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the order of the trial court. In the majority opinion Chief Justice Daniel Ringo states that the state legislature is within its power to make laws such as these which help "the preservation of peace and domestic tranquility". (State v. Buzzard, 1842). Chief Justice Ringo also mentioned in his decision that by participating within American democracy citizens must allow certain rights that may have restrictions placed upon them in order to reap all the advantages that do come with American Government. Chief Justice Ringo felt strongly that "...if subject to no legal regulation or limitation whatever, would tend to unhinge society, and most probably soon cause it wither to fall back to its natural state, or seek refuge and security from the disorders and suffering incident to such licensed invasion of the rights of others in some arbitrary or despotic form of government...".(State v. Buzzard 1842) The majority also stated that the intent of the Second Amendment was for the States to have a militia to protect themselves against a national army that could infiltrate and overthrow them. Because of this original intent the Second Amendment was never meant to apply as a right granted to individuals.

Dissent

Justice Lacy wrote a dissenting opinion. He states that if the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution it must be a useful right granted to all. For him, if we give this power of regulating gun control to the state legislature it "takes the arms out of the hands of the people, and places them in the hands of the legislature...".(Gillman, Graber,& Whittington 2013) A man’s arms are his private property so, for Justice Lacy he should not be legally deprived of them. Also he believes that "only when a citizen breaks his covenant with his government, he forfeits the protection of her laws..." If he does not break any laws that men should be entitled to all the rights which government provides.

Relationship to Modern Gun Rights

General sentiment in Jacksonian America was that right to bear arms was limited to militia service. The debate over the Second Amendment in this era centered, as it continues to do today, around the relationship between self-defense, militia service, and the right to bear arms. In State v Buzzard, Chief Justice Ringo contends that the right to bear arms was intended to apply to the militia due to a consensus that a well-regulated militia offered the best security available to a free state. Since the people of the United States were intimidated by the idea of a large army in times of peace, a lesser means of security was to be provided which would allow states to defend themselves from conspirators and attacks on civil liberties. For this reason, the State of Arkansas did not interpret the second amendment as an individual right. Furthermore, according to Chief Justice Ringo, to carry a concealed weapon would imply that individuals may seek redress in their own manner for invasions of their own liberty. However, to ensure justice and protect liberty are the duties of the government, not the individual. This decision is the precedent of choice for contemporary Americans who champion a narrow reading of the Second Amendment.

Implications for the Second Amendment

Buzzard believed that the state of Arkansas was restricting his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Arkansas state constitution states, "...legislature may regulate the wearing of war arm, but may not prohibit it on a person's own premises or when people are acting in aid of a military officer." (Goss, 2011, p. 35 ) Buzzard was not at his residence when he was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court of Arkansas did find that making a regulation regarding a concealed weapon was not against the Second Amendment of the constitution. The ruling was that, "A statute making the wearing of concealed weapons a penal offense is constitutional." (Goss, 2011, p. 35)

Two of the justices in this case did not view the militia and the right to bear arms as two separate entities, which is why the State of Arkansas believed that regulating the concealment of a weapon, is constitutional. Chief Justice Ringo’s opinion in the case demonstrates that the right to bear arms exists not only for the militia, but also for the use of public defense (Leider, 2014). In regards to public defense, he believes that community members should be able to protect themselves if people were to, "...conspire to overthrow the established institutions of the country." (Leider, 2014, p. 1617) He explains in his opinion that the right to bear arms was, "...surely not designed as an immunity to those who should so keep or bear their arms as to injure or endanger the private rights of others, or is in any manner prejudice the common interests of society." (Gillman, Graber, & Whittington, 2013, p. 235) This Amendment should not be perceived as a way to protect oneself from other community members if one is in a harmful situation. It was created during a period when having a large army during a time of peace was rejected, so the best way society members could protect the State, during this time when there was no army, would be through their own use of bearing arms (Gilman, Graber, & Whittington, 2013).

Justice Dickinson has a similar opinion regarding how the Second Amendment should be interpreted. He believes that the militia should have the right to keep and bear arms, but that the state can regulate how this occurs. The state can only regulate the right to bear arms when, it is "...not required for military purposes." (Leider, 2014) He also states in his opinion, "The militia constitutes the shield and defense for the security of a free State; and to maintain that freedom...arms and the right to use them for that purpose are solemnly guarantied." (Leider, 2014, p. 1617) He justifies the regulation of a concealed weapon because during the time that this law was enforced the state was not under attack, so the use of the militia was not needed.

The two justices explain in their opinions that the right to bear arms is necessary, especially if the citizens of the state need to overthrow the government. According to these Justice’s the main focus of this amendment is to allow citizens to bear arms, to ensure that they will be able to protect themselves from the government. Although they are given this right, it cannot be taken advantage of because then it will harm those in society. This is why Arkansas has created laws to protect society members from weapons, and to make them aware if someone is carrying one on their person.

Addressed in future cases

United States v. Miller, the government used State v. Buzzard as, "...one of the three American cases holding that the right to bear arms only belongs to people in a militia." (Leider, 2014, p. 1617)

Related Cases

Haile v. State (1882), Fife v. State (1876), Wilson v. State (1878)

Related Research Articles

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

The right to keep and bear arms is a legal right for people to possess weapons (arms) for the preservation of life, liberty, and property. The purpose of gun rights is for self-defense, as well as hunting and sporting activities. Countries that guarantee the right to keep and bear arms include Albania, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Ukraine, Mexico, the United States, Yemen, and Switzerland.

The Sullivan Act was a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911. The NY state law requires licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public is a felony. The law was the subject of controversy regarding both its selective enforcement and the licensing bribery schemes it enabled. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a Tammany Hall Democrat.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that the U.S. Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments despite the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the federal criminal convictions for the civil rights violations committed in aid of anti-Reconstruction murders. Decided during the Reconstruction Era, the case represented a major defeat for federal efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans.

Gun politics is defined in the United States by two primary opposing ideologies concerning the private ownership of firearms. Those who advocate for gun control support increasingly restrictive regulation of gun ownership; those who advocate for gun rights oppose increased restriction, or support the liberalization of gun ownership. These groups typically disagree on the interpretation of the text, history and tradition of the laws and judicial opinions concerning gun ownership in the United States and the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American gun politics involves these groups' further disagreement concerning the role of firearms in public safety, the studied effects of ownership of firearms on public health and safety, and the role of guns in national and state crime.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of visibly carrying a firearm in public places, as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. Carrying a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held, "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." It states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the states, and that the right to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This decision was overruled in McDonald v. City of Chicago in (2010).

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "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 bear arms of every description, not such 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!

Gun laws in Colorado regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Colorado in the United States.

Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.

Gun laws in North Dakota regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of North Dakota in the United States.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.

The history of concealed carry in the United States is the history of public opinion, policy, and law regarding the practice of carrying concealed firearms, especially handguns.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

References

Gillman, Howard; Graber, Mark; Whittington, Keith (2013). American Constitutionalism (Volume II ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 234–237.
Leider, R (2014). "Our Non-Originalist Right to Bear Arms". Indiana Law Journal. 89 (4): 1587–1651.
Goss, K.C. (2011). The Arkansas State Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
"State v. Buzzard". LexisNexis.com. Retrieved December 4, 2015.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

v t e United States Second Amendment case law
Supreme Court cases	United States v. Cruikshank (1876) Presser v. Illinois (1886) United States v. Miller (1939) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) Voisine v. United States (2016) New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York (2020) New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) United States v. Rahimi (2024)
Lower court cases	State v. Buzzard (Ark. 1842) Nunn v. Georgia (Ga. 1846) United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001) Silveira v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2002) Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2012) Kachalsky v. Cacace (2d Cir. 2012) Moore v. Madigan (7th Cir. 2012) Woollard v. Gallagher (4th Cir. 2013) People v. Aguilar (Ill. 2013) Peruta v. San Diego County (9th Cir. 2016) Wrenn v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2017) Miller v. Bonta (9th Cir. TBD)
List of firearm court cases in the United States