Posted on 10/07/2016 5:55:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Or attempt to legislate away constitutional rights.
Missouri has become at least the 11th state -- and the fourth this year -- to approve a “constitutional carry” law. That means no permit is required to openly carry or carry a concealed firearm in the Show Me State. The law goes into effect Jan. 1.
Three cheers and all that? Perhaps, to some. But whether the law actually was needed is debatable. And some of its provisions are, frankly, anathema to liberty. After all, the Missouri Constitution stipulates:
“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 or property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned.
“The rights guaranteed 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.”
As Tim Schmidt, president of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, told The Washington Times recently, “States that focus on freedom realize that self-defense truly is a natural-born right, and the Second Amendment truly affirms that natural-born right; you shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to exercise it.
“Kind of like you don’t have to ask the government to exercise the First Amendment,” he said.
That’s spot on. But neither should anyone tolerate government that endangers the public’s safety by, in the name of protecting a constitutional right, rationalizing it.
Missouri’s Republican legislators supposedly are to be lauded for overriding a veto by Democrat Gov. Jay Nixon. But the legislation appears to be a clear violation of Missouri’s Constitution. How else could one explain the 17 places where state residents are prohibited from engaging in the natural-born right to defend themselves?
Among the unconstitutional restrictions:
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri hospital accessed by the public.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri sports arena or stadium with a seating capacity of 5,000 or more.
You can’t defend yourself on any Missouri private property posted off-limits to firearms.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri church or other place of religious worship without the consent of the minister or the person or persons representing the religious organization that exercises control over the place of religious worship.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri gated area of an amusement park.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri casino without the consent of the owner or manager pursuant to the rules promulgated by the state’s gaming commission.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri child-care facility without the consent of the manager.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri school -- including colleges -- without the consent of the governing body of the higher education institution or a school official or the district school board.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri bar (except owners,that is) without the consent of the owner or manager.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri government-owned building, except public housing.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri government meeting (including meetings of the state Legislature).
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri courthouse or building used by a court.
You can’t defend yourself within 25 feet of any Missouri polling place on election day.
You can’t defend yourself in any Missouri police, sheriff or highway patrol office or station without the consent of the chief law enforcement officer in charge of that office or station.
Now, just to clarify, while the Missouri law does not authorize carry in these locations (and a number of others prohibited by federal law), violations of these restrictions are not considered criminal acts.
Still, those carrying can be denied access or removed from such premises. Should they refuse, they can be fined on a graduated scale.
But none of that makes Missouri’s forthcoming law any less unconstitutional. What part of “shall not be questioned” leaves any room to question? What part of “shall be unalienable” allows the Missouri Legislature to take away these clear rights? There is no room. There is no part. There is no constitutional warrant.
And worse, these unconstitutional restrictions establish government-advertised killing fields, a killing guide for those with nefarious designs to make Missourians sitting ducks in just about every restricted place.
It was scientist Carl Sagan who once observed that “if we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.” The great scientist called it “one of the saddest lessons of history.”
And it’s only a matter of time before such bamboozling rationalizations like those made in Missouri make every constitution in every state, and even the U.S. Constitution, the deadest, if not deadliest, of dead letters.
The author wants everything right now, perfection, or nothing.
The Republic and rights were never perfect, they have always had some compromises. We can get close, but perfection is unattainable.
If we were governed by angels, then the laws would be perfect. Then again, we would not need any laws.
“If we were governed by angels, then the laws would be perfect.”
Agreed. We are increasingly being ruled by devils.
I don’t see all of these restrictions as being senseless. So they need to be parsed into senseless and sensible.
To start with, hospitals. Obviously you do not want sparks or open flame anywhere near oxygen. Or anything metal near an MRI. Less obvious is that doctors can make some people very angry. And just because a patient is in the hospital does not mean that those angry with him, who might have put him there, are done with him.
Granted, gun restrictions will not keep out somebody who is really angry. So this part needs fine tuning.
Sports arenas and stadiums and gated area of amusement parks. Not sensible.
Private property posted off-limits. This is a common restriction, and pretty sensible. The same with churches, casinos, and child-care facilities. My place, my rules.
Schools and colleges. This should be changed later, based on the experiences of other states, which are fairly new.
Bars are usually not a problem, though many places do not permit alcohol consumption by an armed person.
Government-owned buildings and government meetings. Not sensible. The one exception is for meetings to discuss very argumentative and angry subjects, for which they should install portable metal detectors.
Courthouses or buildings used by a court. This one is still open to argument. Again, mandated metal detectors are increasingly common here.
Polling places on election day. Instead of restricting guns, they should have serious laws against “brandish & display with intent to intimidate”, basically forbidding only open carry, flashing and menacing.
Police, sheriff or highway patrol office or station. Instead of forbidding guns, they should post a sign for a “secure gun check” at the front desk. Authorization should be sought if intending repeated visits.
Excellent point.
While I certainly believe that the Second Amendment is nothing more than confirmation on a person’s inherent right to self defense I would have to quibble a bit with the author on at least two of the items from his list of restrictions. A private property owner SHOULD have the right, if he so chooses, to keep firearms off his property. If you disagree and don’t want to leave your weapon at home or in a vehicle, then stay off that person’s property. A First Amendment analogy is appropriate. Anyone has the right to hold a peaceful protest, but they don’t have the right to come onto my private property without my permission to hold that protest.
The other quibble I have is that the leadership of a church should be permitted to prevent firearms inside the church or on church proprrty, for much the same reason; a church is private property belonging to that church organization. Those who disagree are free to attend a church that allows firearms on its property. In the same vein, the First Amendment gives you the right to give a public speech, but not the right to give it in a church without permission from the leaders of the church.
I pretty much agree. Gun folk are forced to extreme positions due to complete untrust in the federal government, which lately is totally justified.
Missouri is a pretty good place to own guns.
Having said that, the laws are confusing.
Status quo before 2014: open carry not at all prohibited by state law, but could be overridden by local law. Concealed carry cannot be overridden other than the exceptions noted, most of which do not carry “force of law” — in other words the property owner/manager can ask you to leave and there is ZERO penalty unless you keep doing it, and even then, it’s not criminal.
2014: Concealed carry permit holders can’t have open carry rights overridden by any of the thousands of municipal codes. Note that this applied to concealed carry holders only.
2017: No concealed carry permit required IN PLACES WHERE YOU COULD ALREADY OPEN CARRY (only).
Confusing? Pointless?
Churches can stupidly ban gun carry, though
- they will have a hell of a time detecting concealed carry
- all they can do is ask you to leave if they find out
MANY churches are being protected IN SPITE of their stupidity
> Guys like him do more harm than good.
No shiite! NRA is often on the wrong side of this too.
I also kind of like the idea that legal concealed carriers were required by law to have some training.
I’m an NRA member and trainer, but I am looking for a gun organization that thinks right and does not just take the extreme position.
I dropped my 30+ year membership when the NRA supported two incumbent dem congress critters here because they had a “good” record on guns.
I have been somewhat impressed with them of late, however, and am thinking about signing up again.
“I also kind of like the idea that legal concealed carriers were required by law to have some training.”
I agree. I think they should have 6 years of training and prove perfect marksmanship under extreme conditions and excessive ranges.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? It irritates the hell out of me for someone who will claim to be conservative make the same arguments as any liberal. Training (while not a bad idea) is infringement, as well as licenses.
You’re FOS on this point, friend. You have the same natural right to acquire and drive a car that you have to defend yourself and others. The Constitution doesn’t give you any rights. It only limits government. The fact that it does not mention that your right to acquire, keep and use means of transportation means absolutely nothing.
The right of self defense is not superior to the right of ownership of private property. They are equal in their authority. As such, to be on a private property (be it hospital, church, bar etc) requires the private property owners permission. Therefore, the owner of that property has the RIGHT to require conditions be met to be on that property. One of those conditions can be the disarming of individuals.
Having said that, creating a law that automatically disarms a citizen is perhaps a step too far. In my opinion, the carrier should be confronted either by signage or in person and asked to leave. If they do not leave, charged with trespass.
Very good point about automatic soft disarmament. (I say soft because most restrictions in MO do not carry force of law). Posting would be a much better idea.
Retail stores and workplaces are not mentioned generically in MO firearms law. There seem to be far fewer “No Guns” signs than there used to be. And even when there is one, it is essentially identical in force to a “No Barefoot” sign.
The problem now with MO firearms law is the crazy relationships (in both directions) between concealed and open carry. I’m concerned that people are going to get in trouble due to misunderstanding.
> asked to leave. If they do not leave, charged with trespass.
This is exactly the MO law. The default of “no guns in certain areas” is still there, but it is up to the owner/manager to
- detect the firearm
- ask the carrier to leave (or not)
No, I’m not FOS and your argument doesn’t make sense. I don’t recall a natural borne right to keep and drive cars. I also assure you that I know not only what the constitution says but it’s meaning and purpose as well. I honestly don’t think you do.
Your right to move around is not enumerated in the Constitution. Yet you assert it, and if you assert it by driving, you acquired a driver’s license, and submitted to its terms. In the past, driver’s education was provided in the public schools, and most people thought it was a good thing. You can’t say that moving around is less important than self defense. They are both “natural rights.”
“Education” is mandated by the government, and we accept it. Why would mandating firearms education be a step in the wrong direction? It used to be common in our high schools.
I’m sorry, but I cannot get on your level of discussion. I’ve already said there is no enumerated right to drive a car in the constitution. There is to keep and bear arms without infringement. Any government regulation on the keeping and bearing of arms is infringement, to include requirements for training. Do I think you should get training? Of course.
Let me ask you a couple of rhetorical questions; what government official is going to determine how much training I need to keep and bear arms? Am I required to get an hour? A day? A year? How do I document the training I got from my father from the time I was 8 years old when he bought me my first rifle? What kind of guns can I own? Do I have to have training on each one?
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.