Missouri Gun Poll

Missouri Lawyer's Weekly ^ | October 25, 2003

[Shooter 2.5]

Freep the poll.

http://www.molawyersweekly.com

[Shooter 2.5]

Here's another poll:

http://www.molawyersweekly.com

[Shooter 2.5]

Another poll to Freep.

[Shooter 2.5]

Another poll to Freep.

[Shooter 2.5]

Another poll to Freep.

[Shooter 2.5]

http://www.molawyersweekly.com

[Shooter 2.5]

Freep the poll.

Thanks.

[2timothy3.16]

Lawyers Weekly Web Poll Results

---

Do you agree with a St. Louis Circuit Court ruling that said Missouri's new concealed carry law is unconstitutional?

Yes, there are constitutional problems with the concealed carry legislation.

22%

No, the statute should be permitted to go into effect.

78%

Total Votes:

316

---

This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those internet users who have chosen to participate. Back to Missouri Lawyers Weekly

Discuss this and other issues on the Lawyers Weekly Online Forum

[Dr.Zoidberg]

bump

[facedown]

Do you agree with a St. Louis Circuit Court ruling that said Missouri's new concealed carry law is unconstitutional?
Yes, there are constitutional problems with the concealed carry legislation.		21%
No, the statute should be permitted to go into effect.		79%
Total Votes:	348

[Sloth]

What do they claim is the constitutional problem?

[Missouri]

Missouri Ping.

[Dead Corpse]

There ARE Constitutional problems with it. The State Constitution cannot take away a Right protected by the Federal Constitution. Period.

As for over turing prior Missouri Law, there is no State Constitutional conflict. More guns in the hand of Law Abiding Citizens is a GOOD thing. I will never be able to fully approve of licensing laws. Especially since we have places like Germany to warn us about what happens when we do register. And Britain. And Australia. What they have attempted to do in Canada...

You get the idea.

It's a Right. I don't need anyones "permission" to excersize it.

These "baby steps" sure as hell better not turn into "jack boots".

[Shooter 2.5]

Missouri: 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 wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).

I think they're claiming since it's not spelled out in the Constitution, the legislation couldn't be enacted.

Or some BS like that.

[Sloth]

That IS B.S. BTW, why do I think the same folks don't take this part to seriously: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property... shall not be questioned?

[Eastbound]

"(enacted 1945)."

Anyone know what the wording was before the 1945 enactment?

[TheEngineer]

Freeped! 84% to 16% -- 452 Votes.

[Shooter 2.5]

Missouri: 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 wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.

[Eastbound]

Thanks, Shooter. A perfect example how things get morphed. Reminds me of "Animal Farm."

The next change will probably look like this:

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, (*Insert change here) or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).

*INSERT: "except on days that fall on Saturday and Sunday in each month and other days that fall on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of each week;" (2004)

I think the 1820 clause was sufficient. Who gave gummint the right to question the rights of the people of MO? But then, I think that happened in every state. New Mexico is similar.

[Travis McGee]