A majority held that the sole intent of the Second Amendment was for the States to have a militia to protect themselves against a national army that could infiltrate and overthrow them.
Does this Arkansas state law that made illegal the carrying of a concealed weapon infringe on citizens Second Amendment rights?
Chief Justice Ringo felt strongly that "...if subject to no legal regulation or limitation whatever, would tend to unhinge society, and most probably soon cause it wither to fall back to its natural state, or seek refuge and security from the disorders and suffering incident to such licensed invasion of the rights of others in some arbitrary or despotic form of government...".
The debate over the Second Amendment in this era centered, as it continues to do today, around the relationship between self-defense, militia service, and the right to bear arms.
Furthermore, according to Chief Justice Ringo, to carry a concealed weapon would imply that individuals may seek redress in their own manner for invasions of their own liberty.
(Goss, 2011, p. 35) Two of the justices in this case did not view the militia and the right to bear arms as two separate entities, which is why the State of Arkansas believed that regulating the concealment of a weapon, is constitutional.
Chief Justice Ringo's opinion in the case demonstrates that the right to bear arms exists not only for the militia, but also for the use of public defense (Leider, 2014).
In regards to public defense, he believes that community members should be able to protect themselves if people were to, "...conspire to overthrow the established institutions of the country."
(Leider, 2014, p. 1617) He justifies the regulation of a concealed weapon because during the time that this law was enforced the state was not under attack, so the use of the militia was not needed.