Klinger v. State of Missouri was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could impose a criminal penalty for the refusal to perform military service. The case arose when a Missouri resident, John Klinger, was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for refusing to serve in the state militia. Klinger argued that the state had no authority to impose such a penalty, as the power to raise and support armies was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with Klinger, ruling that the state of Missouri had no authority to impose a criminal penalty for the refusal to perform military service. The Court reasoned that the power to raise and support armies was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, and that the states had no authority to interfere with this power. The Court also noted that the state of Missouri had no authority to impose a criminal penalty for the refusal to perform military service, as the power to raise and support armies was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Court's ruling in Klinger v. State of Missouri established that the states could not interfere with the federal government's power to raise and support armies. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the power of the federal government to raise and support armies.

In Klinger v. State of Missouri, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited carrying concealed weapons violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The majority opinion held that this law did not violate the Second Amendment because it only regulated how firearms were carried and did not prohibit citizens from owning or bearing them altogether. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while states have some power to regulate firearms, they cannot completely take away an individual's right to carry them for self-defense purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. He argued that if states could do so then individuals would be left defenseless against criminals who are still able to obtain guns illegally despite any laws prohibiting their possession or use in public places. Furthermore, he noted that even though there may be legitimate reasons for regulating gun ownership and usage in certain circumstances such as when hunting game animals or engaging in military service, these regulations should never go so far as to prevent people from defending themselves against potential harm caused by others with illegal weapons.