(Missouri) High court will weigh legality of new gun law

St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 01/21/2004 | Terry Ganey

[neverdem]

JEFFERSON CITY - The meaning of 10 words in the state Constitution will be argued before the Missouri Supreme Court today when judges consider the legality of the law that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons.

The phrase reads "but this shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons," and is the language that St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer cited on Nov. 7 when he declared the state's concealed weapons law unconstitutional.

[neverdem]

FYI

[Reelect President Dubya]

Nixon's office has argued that the courts should give the Legislature the benefit of the doubt on constitutional matters, but lawyers for the plaintiffs pointed out that the people have already voted down concealed weapons.

It was voted down by all the dead Democrats who voted in St. Louis and Kansas City.

[neverdem]

BANG

[Joe Brower]

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I didn't think Nixon was a fan of the RKBA.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Admin: Please add a "(Missouri)" (or "MO" or "State") as a prefix or suffix to the headline to avoid confustion with SCOTUS.

[Reelect President Dubya]

I didn't think Nixon was a fan of the RKBA.

Sort of like having Sarah Brady represent you in court, eh?

[optimistically_conservative]

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power shall not be questioned, but this shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons."

STATE OF MISSOURI ALVIN BROOKS, et al. STATE OF MISSOURI

House Bill 349

[steve8714]

Nixon is dead right on this issue. Until he wins some Washington office, he'll be a Jefferson County Dem.
If the fix is in (likely) it is in with the judges. County of residence may be the best indicator. St. Louis or Jackson county, not much chance. Outstate county?...wellll.....

[teeman8r]

but just try and declare the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the document becomes a living document that doesn't now mean what it says...

sheesh. start wearing them on the hip then...

[dd5339]

Ping to watch for results of the decision.

Semper Fi

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Not quite, but same neighhborhood.

[XHogPilot]

If the MO Supreme Court decides their Constitution prohibits CCW, then their decision would apply to everyone. All law enforcement officers and military members must abide by the laws of the state. They would also be prohibited from CCW.

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power shall not be questioned, but this shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons."

[goldstategop]

Yep. I'd love to see law enforcement stripped of its right to carry concealed weapons. The gun banners want only LEO to be able to carry CW, but if no one has the right, neither should LEO. There shouldn't be an elite armed group in our society. My view is let the plaintiffs in Missouri, led by One Term Bob Holden, choke on their twisted reading of the state's constitution in the event they prevail on the merits before the MO Supreme Court.

[Ancesthntr]

If the MO Supreme Court decides their Constitution prohibits CCW, then their decision would apply to everyone. All law enforcement officers and military members must abide by the laws of the state. They would also be prohibited from CCW.

Exactly; the simple fact is that the Legislature already regulates concealed carry. In fact, my understanding of MO law (courtesy of John Ross, of Unintended Consequences fame and a MO resident himself) is that those now able to carry don't have any training obligations (with the recent exception of the police) and don't have to pay any fees, so that those covered by the disputed law are actually far more regulated than those who already have the legislature's permission to carry.

Ross also believes that while the MO AG's office hates the idea of concealed carry, it hates the idea of a St. Louis judge overriding state law even less...so there is hope here.

[goldstategop]

Especially a single LIBERAL Saint Louis County Judge. St Louis and Kansas City were the only counties in the state that rejected CCW when it was last voted on in 1999. Every other county in MO wanted it. So basically what the plaintiffs are saying is the MO General Assembly has no right to ever revisit a prior vote of the people - which is absurd. Hopefully the MO SC will defer to the good judgment of the elected representatives of the people who have spoken on the matter of shall carry CCCW in the state.

[tahiti]

"So basically what the plaintiffs are saying is the MO General Assembly has no right to ever revisit a prior vote of the people - which is absurd."

By definition, a constitution is supposed to and is intended to prevent the tyranny of the majority from denying and disparaging the rights of the individual.

The prior vote of the people was a "constitutional amendment" which is the proper way to deal with constitutional prohibitions on the legislature.

So, yes, the legislature has not right to revisit the prior vote of the people on the conceal carry issue because the legislature is constitutionally prohibited from that action.

Only a "liberal" would allow such legislative flexibility to overturn the prohibitions put on the legislature by a constitution, by just passing a law versus the correct method of changing a constitution through constitutional amendment.

A "conservative" would wish to conserve the tennants and convenants of a constitution that preserves the liberties of the people.

[TYVets]

AG Nixon hates concealed carry, but if he looses this case his political career in Washington DC is dead meat.