## Facts

- Georgia enacted a 1837 statute restricting the sale and carrying of certain weapons, including most pistols, while permitting “horseman’s pistols.”
- Hawkins H. Nunn was indicted in Sumter Superior Court for a “high misdemeanor” for having and keeping about his person, and elsewhere, a pistol that was not a “horseman’s pistol.”
- The indictment did not allege that Nunn carried the pistol concealed; it alleged only possession/carrying “about his person, and elsewhere.”
- Nunn moved to quash the indictment, including on constitutional grounds; the trial court denied the motion.
- Nunn was convicted and sought review by writ of error in the Supreme Court of Georgia.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1837 statute’s prohibition on carrying pistols (other than “horseman’s pistols”), including open carrying, violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
2. Whether the legislature may forbid the carrying of certain weapons entirely, or may only regulate the manner of carrying (such as by prohibiting concealed carry).
3. Whether, given the indictment’s failure to allege concealment, the conviction could stand if only the concealed-carry portion of the statute was valid.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the conviction and quashed the proceeding.
- The court held the statute valid insofar as it prohibited carrying specified weapons secretly (concealed carry).
- The court held the statute unconstitutional and void insofar as it prohibited bearing arms openly.
- Because Nunn was indicted and convicted without any allegation of concealment, the judgment rested on the invalid prohibitory portion of the statute and could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- The Second Amendment protects an individual right of “the people” to keep and bear arms, not limited to militia members.
- The protected right extends broadly to arms “of every description,” rather than only arms in common militia use.
- A state may regulate the manner of bearing arms, including banning concealed carry, if citizens retain the ability to bear arms openly for self-defense.
- A law that operates as a general prohibition on bearing arms openly, or otherwise materially restrains the right, violates the constitutional guarantee.

## Conclusion

The court drew a line between permissible regulation of concealed carry and impermissible prohibition of open bearing of arms, invalidating the statute to the extent it disarmed ordinary citizens and reversing Nunn’s conviction because the indictment did not charge concealment.


Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (Ga. 1846)