Posted on 03/01/2015 9:16:35 AM PST by marktwain
A St. Louis Judge has ruled that Missouri's tough new protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not just a paper tiger. In the first ruling of its kind, the court ruled that a person cannot be prohibited from the right to keep and bear arms under Missouri statutes, for a non-violent felony. From stltoday.com:
St. Louis Circuit Judge Robert Dierker ruled that the Missouri law prohibiting felons from possessing guns is unconstitutional as applied in the case of Raymond Robinson, in part because it fails to differentiate between violent and non-violent felons.The amendment declares the right to keep and bear arms unalienable and subjects laws restricting gun rights to strict scrutiny.
I have read Judge Dierker's opinion. It is exceptionally well done. The logic is clear and the issues are well defined. Mr. Robinson had been convicted of a felony over 10 years ago, in 2003. The conviction was for a non-violent crime; ironically, for illegal carry of a firearm. As Missouri's shall issue law did not become effective before September of 2003, and it takes some time to process permits, Mr. Robinson could not have obtained a permit to carry the firearm at the time of his conviction.Dierker limited his decision to the circumstances of Robinsons situation; it is not binding on other cases. It also has no effect on a federal law prohibiting felons from possession guns.
"Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.The sponsor of the legislation is quoted in the St. Louis Today article as saying:
But he insisted that allowing felons to automatically have possession of firearms was not the intent or legal effect of Amendment 5.I suspect that Senator Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, is being precise and truthful. The intent and effect of the amendment does not automatically allow felons to have possession of firearms. It makes a significant differentiation, between violent felons and non-violent felons. This is a crucial distinction that seems lost on the writer of the article in St. Louis Today, Alex Stuckey.
Far too many crimes are "felonies" any more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.