Following is the opinion of Justice CJ Emmert in the case of
Matthews v Indiana, 237 Ind. 677 (1958)
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/matthe...

“The people shall
have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the
State.” It is to be noted that this constitutional protection is in
the identical language of the first clause of section 20 of Article
1 of the 1816 Constitution of Indiana. [footnote 1] The Indiana
constitutional right to bear arms is not based only in aid of the
militia as is the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution,
which states: “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.” Nor does the Indiana Constitution
guaranteeing the inalienable right of self-defense, specifically
grant the General Assembly the right to regulate the carrying of
weapons. [footnote 2] The constitutional right to bear arms in
Indiana is stated in clear and simple language, and neither this
court nor the Legislature, even when it enacts a Uniform Firearms
Act, has any right to disregard a single well-chosen word, nor
deprive an accused of a right granted by the Constitution. We
should “not bend the constitution to suit the law of the hour.”
Greencastle Twp. v. Black (1854), 5 Ind. 557, 565. If
constitutional rights are to mean anything, they must protect the
guilty as well as the innocent. Batchelor v. State (1920), 189 Ind.
69, 84, 125 N. E. 773. We are not considering a constitutional
provision which may bring in a mixed question of law and fact or
the reasonableness of a regulation, as may be the case under the
Fourteenth Amendment; all that is involved in the appeal at bar is
a question of law.

The decisions from other jurisdictions are not uniform on the
right to keep and bear arms any more than the constitutional
provisions are stated in the same language. Few of the decisions
make any historical analysis of the cause for constitutional
guarantees of the right to bear arms being considered so important
by the Forefathers, nor do they consider the future effect of the
precedent being made as to the right of the Legislature to make
more drastic regulations and prohibitions. But the Supreme Court of
Michigan has well noted the constitutional right to bear arms in
America had its origin in the fear of a standing army as well as a
necessity of self-protection in st frontier society. See People v.
Brown (1931), 253 Mich. 537, 235 N. W. 245, 82 A. L. R. 341. The
English Bill of Rights (1688) had declared against the keeping of
a standing army without the consent of Parliament, and that certain
subjects should “have arms for their defense suitable to their
conditions, and as allowed by law.” The British Parliament is not
restrained by any written Constitution, but the American theory of
government is that both the Legislative and the Executive must be
restrained and limited by a written constitution.

It seems too plain for doubt that out of the bitter
experiences of the French and Indian Wars and American Revolution
came the deep realization that the inalienable right of
self-defense should be protected by constitutional guarantees
beyond the power of any temporary majority in the Legislature to
circumvent or abolish. The Indiana right to defense is in almost
the identical language of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776
which stated: “That the People have a Right to bear Arms for the
Defence of themselves and the State; and as Standing Armies, in the
Time of Peace, are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept
up: And that the Military should be kept under strict Subordination
to, and Governed by the Civil Power.” Section the Thirteenth,
Chapter 1, Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. [footnote 3] Although
the Pennsylvania Dutch gunsmiths in Lancaster County started their
production of guns by 1720, many on the frontier were without arms.
In 1775 Conrad Weiser had written Governor Morris of his attempt to
defend the Paxton people above Hunter's Mill, and reported that he
“gave orders to them to go home and fetch their Arms, whether Guns,
Swords, pitchforks, axes, or whatsoever might be of use against the
enemy.” J. I. Mombert, Authentic History of Lancaster County,
Penn., p. 159. Nor was the situation much better on the frontier in
the Shenandoah Valley where Washington in 1756 found that for 200
Culpeper militiamen there were only eighty firelocks. Vol. 2,
Douglas Southall Freeman, George Washington, p. 185.

The Continental Congress on July 18, 1775, resolved that it be
recommended to the various Colonies that all able-bodied effective
men, between 16 and 50 years of age be formed into regular
companies of militia, but the difficulty of finding arms still
persisted. Many militiamen had arms unsuitable for use in the
field. It was easier to get men than to arm them. [footnote 4] In
the siege of Boston when the Connecticut militia returned home,
those who had suitable arms had them seized by the army with
arrangements made for compensation. But the historical evidence is
undisputed that before the close of the Revolution muzzle-loaded
flintlock pistols were being owned and used by some members of the
Continental Army; so the right to bear arms as first recognized by
the Forefathers not only included cutting swords, muskets, rifles
and shotguns, but also pistols. [footnote 5] Arms were not only
necessary for the equipment of the militia (see U. S. v. Miller
(1939), 307 U. S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206), but the
necessities of each man being in a position to protect himself and
his property were so obvious that the Forefathers chose not to rely
upon mere legislation to guarantee the right.

When our 1816 Constitution was adopted, the War of 1812 had
hardly finished. The militia of Kentucky and some from Indiana
Territory had fought under William Henry Harrison. Only a
comparatively few pioneers had settled in the southern part of the
State and along the Ohio state line. If the pioneer had money he
had to protect it himself, and if he wanted personal security for
himself, his family or his cabin, he had to accomplish it by self
help. Every free white able-bodied male, not a conscientious
objector, between 18 and 45 years of age, belonged to the militia.
Act VII, 1816 Constitution of Indiana. He had to have the right to
bear arms for his defense and the defense of the State; hence this
inalienable right was incorporated in the Constitution as it was
understood from the time of the American Revolution to 1816. Of
necessity, the guaranty also embraced the right to have ammunition
and the opportunity to become proficient in the use of arms so long
as no trespass was committed upon the rights' of others.

It was early held that the 1831 statute prohibiting anyone
except travelers from wearing or carrying concealed weapons was
constitutional. State v. Mitchell (1833), 3 Blackf. 229. The
militia was never on duty armed with concealed weapons. The bearing
of arms was unconcealed. This in no way limited the right to bear
arms unconcealed, and not until the present Uniform Firearms Act
has any statute attempted to abolish what the Constitution
protects.

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.

It is often assumed in some of the cases that a change in the
constitutional right to bear arms must be made in the exercise of
the police power of the State for the protection of the health,
safety and general welfare of the people. The same argument could
be presented for the impairment of the constitutional right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures, which has roots in
the pre-Revolutionary Writs of Assistance used to oppress the
people of Massachusetts. What is overlooked is the obvious fact
that the constitutional right to bear arms is in itself an exercise
of the sovereign police power, and being a part of the
Constitution, the Legislature has been prohibited from legislating
any part of it out of existence.

Nor can it be maintained that the right to bear arms only
protects the use of muskets, muzzle-loading rifles, shotguns
[footnote 6] 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 bunting 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.

If the Legislature can prohibit the carrying of an unconcealed
pistol without a permit, with equal logic it can prohibit the
carrying of an unconcealed rifle or shotgun without a permit. The
advocates of a Police State by restrictive legislation or
administrative rules always seem around and busy trying to restrict
freedom and constitutional rights. Their plan is always cleverly
designed to take a small chip at a time, for “many strokes
overthrow the tallest oaks.”

If we are to heed the lessons of modern history, it is
self-evident our Bill of Rights should be construed liberally in
favor of the individual and against restrictive legislation. When
the Boston Police Strike resulted in areas of local anarchy within
the city, the only protection for private property was the owner's
armed guard. We have often been cited to the example of England and
her restrictive firearms legislation as the cause for reducing
crimes. [footnote 7] But it is within the memory of most of us that
after Dunkirk, Americans with hunting arms were urged to give them
to England to rearm a disarmed population in order to repel
Hitler's planned invasion. [footnote 8] Had Hitler succeeded, the
population would have been disarmed again for Dictators can
tolerate no arms among the subject people. Modern History clearly
discloses a prime modus operandi of the Communist State is the
disarming of its civilian population.

Today, we read it is freely predicted that if we sustain an
all-out H-bomb war, we shall suffer 65,000,000 or more casualties.
No one can predict where they may be, or the extent of a resulting
breakdown in law and order. It may well be that the man who
survives near the target area will be the one who has prepared to
bear arms for his defense. It is never safe to ignore the lessons
of History, for too often they are repeated in a different form
under changed conditions.

It is a departure in constitutional interpretation to reason
that because the Indiana Constitution does not say “the people
shall have a right to carry pistols for the defense of themselves
and the State” that therefore the Legislature can restrict the
right to carry them unconcealed without a permit. With equal force
it could be argued that because the Fifth Amendment did not
specifically say no person should suffer a judgment against him
without notice, that the due process clause of the Amendment would
not be violated if a Federal statute authorized a judgment without
notice. Neither does our Constitution mention rifles or shotguns.
If the Legislature can restrict the carrying of a pistol
unconcealed without a permit, it can do the same for rifles and
shotguns. Moreover, since pistols are not named in the
Constitution, what is to prevent the Legislature from making it a
felony to have one at all? By the same reasoning there is nothing
to prevent the Legislature from making it a felony to own or
possess a shotgun or rifle. Of course the complete disarming of the
people is the ultimate objective of the advocate of the Police
State, whether he be a misguided reformer or a ruthless Dictator.
The greatest danger in the precedent made today lies in the future.
It will be used to justify further legislative encroachment on the
constitutional right to bear arms, including shotguns and rifles.

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.

FOOTNOTES

1. The concluding clause of section 20 of the 1816 Constitution is,
“and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the
civil power.”

2. “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing
herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the
carrying of weapons.” Section 26, Article 2, Constitution of
Oklahoma. The Texas Constitution specifically gives its Legislature
similar power.

3. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 restated the prohibition
with a slight change of language. “That the right of citizens to
bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be
questioned.” Section XXI, Article IX.

4. “If what he had observed in Virginia was typical of conditions
in the other Colonies, it was far easier to get men than to arm
them. Expanded manufacture of firelocks and explosives would be
difficult to begin and of doubtful issue.” Vol. 3, Douglas Southall
Freeman, George Washington, p. 442.

5. “The men who carried these pistols [in the American Revolution]
came from three branches of the service and included some of the
most famous and colorful units of the war. There were the cavalry
of both armies, the navies, and selected infantry regiments.” p.
31.
“The largest manufactury of pistols in America was the
Rappahannock Forge at Falmouth, Virginia.” p. 32. Harold L.
Peterson, Pistols in the American Revolution. American Rifleman,
October 1955, pp. 31-33.

6. Boone at the Battle of Blue Licks in 1782 was fighting with a
shotgun loaded with ball and buckshot. John Bakeless, Daniel
Boone, p. 298.

7. This proposition is untenable, when the many causes, too
numerous to discuss here, are analyzed.

8. “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing
grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall
fighting the hills, we shall never surrender.” Winston Churchill,
Speech on Dunkirk, House of Commons, June 4, 1940.

What part of “The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.” don't you understand?

Stop being an idiot

However, if I wanted to carry my M4 or Colt .45 into the People's Statehouse, I should be able to do so without paying for permission to do so.

Further, the Indiana Constitution rules in this state, and there are NO restrictions in the language of Article 1 Section 32:

“The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”

See? No restrictions, no ambiguity. Nice, clear, concise language that anyone except a LIEyer,LiaR or bottom feeding legislator could understand.