## Facts

- The City of Salina prosecuted Blaksley in municipal court under a city ordinance restricting the carrying of a pistol while intoxicated (or in comparable circumstances affecting public safety).
- Blaksley challenged the ordinance as violating the Kansas constitutional provision stating that “the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security.”
- The municipal court upheld the ordinance and entered judgment against Blaksley.
- Blaksley appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing the constitutional provision protected an individual right to carry arms for personal purposes.

## Issues

1. Whether the Kansas Constitution’s right-to-bear-arms clause protects an individual right to privately carry weapons for personal defense.
2. Whether “bear arms” and “defense and security” in the Kansas clause refer to personal self-defense or to collective defense connected to organized militia service.
3. Whether a municipal ordinance restricting pistol carrying in intoxication-related circumstances is unconstitutional under the Kansas right-to-bear-arms clause.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the City of Salina and upheld the ordinance.
- The court held the Kansas right-to-bear-arms clause protects the people collectively, tied to the organized militia, rather than a private individual right to carry weapons for personal purposes.
- Because Blaksley’s conduct was private and unrelated to militia service, the constitutional provision did not bar the city’s regulation.

## Legal Principles

- A state constitutional guarantee that “the people” may “bear arms” may be construed as protecting a collective, militia-related right rather than an individual right of personal weapons carrying.
- “Bear arms” may be interpreted in a military sense (carrying arms as part of organized service), and “defense and security” as referring to common defense rather than individualized self-defense.
- When the right-to-bear-arms provision is limited to militia-related purposes, the legislature and municipalities may regulate individual firearm carrying as an exercise of the police power, including restrictions aimed at intoxication-related public-safety risks.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court sustained Salina’s ordinance by reading the Kansas right-to-bear-arms clause as a collective protection connected to organized militia service, leaving municipalities free to restrict private pistol carrying, including in intoxication-related situations.


City of Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905)