I was just looking at the Indiana Constitution's right to keep and bear arms clause in Art. I, Sect. 32:
The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
and I don't think it's as robust as people think it is.
First of all, I don't like the phrase, "The people shall have". That smacks of "we're the government, and we're granting you the following right." The 2A language is significantly better, since the implication is that the right is a natural, pre-existing right.
Secondly, I don't like the fact that there is no "shall not be infringed" language in the section. It's all well and good to say that the people have a right to bear arms, but leaving out something like "and the Legislature shall make no law infringing said right" seems to leave the door open to the full panoply of carry permits, gun registration, gun confiscation, etc. ad nauseum.
It strikes me that we would not need laws like HB 1065, HB 1068, and SB 25, and we would not have to be working against crap like SB 304, if the good folks who rewrote our constitution in 1851 had used more forceful language.
