Oct. 7, 1911.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
551 
Bennington, Vt., Sept. 20. —Editor Forest and 
Stream: The so-called Sullivan dangerous 
weapon law of New York, mentioned in your 
editorial of the 16th inst., is certainly attracting 
the attention of the people—and especially the 
sportsmen—throughout the country, and there¬ 
fore, I may be pardoned for commenting at 
length upon the same. Undoubtedly this statute 
is one of the most drastic and bungling pieces 
of legislation ever enacted in this country. In 
an attempt to restrain the violent passions of 
the so-called “Apaches” of New York city—a 
class of outlawed murderers—the State has seen 
fit to pass a law infringing the fundamental 
rights of citiens of all free governments. It is 
a e'ear case of outraging the rights of thou¬ 
sands of her law-abiding citiens to restrain a 
few criminals on the east side in New York, 
and as such the law will never be a success. 
In the first place, this law runs counter to 
the very spirit and meaning of our institutions, 
for when our forefathers established this nation 
they fully relied upon the martial spirit of our 
people to preserve the republic in the future, 
and they intended in every way to encourage 
and foster this martial spirit. The safety of 
the country lies in the fact that here every man 
seems fond of his rifle, his shotgun and his 
revolver, and that such men are proud of being 
considered clever marksmen. It is conceded 
by all that it requires time and constant prac¬ 
tice to make a skilled marksman. To encourage 
small arms practice numerous rifle and re¬ 
volver associations have been formed through¬ 
out the country, and the National Government 
is doing all within its power to encourage these 
organizations. Also we are attempting to con¬ 
serve our supply of game that there may be 
ample shooting for all. Only after the bloody 
Boer war did England realize that her soldiers 
could not shoot straight and were at a great 
disadvantage against an enemy of big-game 
hunters who were excellent marksmen. Sup¬ 
pose a war should again call out our volunteers. 
Do we wish them to be a lot of mollycoddles 
and perfectly ignorant of handling guns and 
revolvers? It is of no consequence if these 
troops are ignorant of drill regulations, precise 
marching and military science; if they are skilled 
marksmen, they will be a formidable adversary 
for the finest trained soldiers of Europe. But 
if they cannot shoot accurately, they would be 
at the mercy of almost any enemy. 
Now, what of the Sullivan law? Will it have 
the effect of discouraging our gun clubs, or 
rifle and revolver associations, and tend to 
cause the citizen to give up the use of the fire¬ 
arms? Certainly it will—if the courts do not 
nullify the law. The next question is: Is this 
act unconstitutional? Most clearly does it 
appear that it is, although it appears to have 
been drafted with the object of avoiding all 
reported decisions on the subject. Its object is 
claimed to be “to regulate” the keeping and 
bearing of arms, and not to prohibit their use. 
It is undoubtedly contrary to the spirit of our 
constitution, yet courts cannot declare a statute 
void on that account—it must also violate the 
letter of the constitution, or it will be upheld. 
Unfortunately, the constitution of New York has 
no provision safeguarding this right to her citizens 
as most of the other States have. Then we must 
look to the constitution of the United States 
and ascertain if we cannot get aid there to save 
us from this un-American enactment. The right 
to keep and bear arms is an inalienable and 
fundamental right belonging to the people of all 
free governments, and is not wholly dependent 
upon any constitutional provision to secure it. 
This principle of law has been repeatedly upheld 
by the courts of this country. Also the citizen 
has a right to bear arms in defense of his life 
or property. Tie cannot be deprived of this 
right by any mere act of State legislation. As 
well might we say that the Legislature can de¬ 
prive us of our right of self-defense. 
Where, then, you inquire, can we find pro¬ 
visions in the Federal constitution which in¬ 
hibit this enactment? Article Second of the 
amendments of that instrument provides: “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.” 
Of this article Justice Story in his Commen¬ 
taries on the Constitution, says: “The im¬ 
portance of this article will scarcely be doubted 
by any persons who have duly reflected upon 
the subject. * * * The right of the citizens 
to keep and bear arms has justly been con¬ 
sidered as the palladium of the liberties of a re¬ 
public.” Now, this amendment of the consti¬ 
tution has been brought before the Supreme 
Court of the United States for interpretation 
and construction on several occasions, and that 
court has held that this, as well as the other 
seven amendments, does not apply to the 
States. In other words, these amendments are 
not intended as a limitation upon the powers 
of the State Legislatures, but refer exclusively 
to the acts of Congress. But hold!—not so 
fast—for perhaps this article may help us to 
decide the matter after all. It will be ob¬ 
served that this amendment fully recognizes the 
right of the people to keep and bear arms as 
being one of the privileges and immunities of 
the citizens of the United States. What is 
meant in the constitution by the “privileges and 
immunities of the citizens of the United States”? 
They are many and fundamental in character, 
but we are only concerned at present in ascer¬ 
taining whether or not this is one of them. In 
the now famous Slaughter House Cases (12 
Wallace 36) the Federal Supreme Court defined 
many of these privileges and immunities, and 
among other things, the court says: “What¬ 
ever the constitution and laws of the United 
States entitled him [a citizen of the United 
States] to exemption from, he may claim an 
immunity in respect to. And such a right or 
privilege is abridged whenever the State law in¬ 
terferes with any legitimate operation of 
Federal authority which concerns his interest, 
whether it be an authority actively exerted, or 
resting only in the express or implied command 
or assurance of the Federal constitution or 
laws.” 
Now, let 11s proceed to the next step in our 
examination of the Federal constitution. We 
find, among other provisions of the fourteenth 
amendment, one clause which declares: “No 
State shall make or enforce any law which shall 
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens 
of the United States.” So we have now arrived 
at the inevitable postulate of law, that compell¬ 
ing a citizen of the United States to take out 
a permit, and for which he is charged the ex¬ 
tortionate price of $10 per annum; to keep and 
bear arms in his home or in his personal pos- 
HOPE DEFERRED.—III. 
Photographs by Miss Carita Lemmon. 
