Skip to comments.
(Missouri) High court will weigh legality of new gun law
St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^
| 01/21/2004
| Terry Ganey
Posted on 01/22/2004 11:21:12 AM PST by neverdem
Edited on 05/11/2004 5:35:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; ccw; concealedcarry; guncontrol; secondamendment
FYI
1
posted on
01/22/2004 11:21:13 AM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
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.
To: fourdeuce82d; Travis McGee; Joe Brower
BANG
3
posted on
01/22/2004 11:27:54 AM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi min oi)
To: *bang_list
4
posted on
01/22/2004 11:30:35 AM PST
by
Joe Brower
("We all declare for liberty: but in using the same word, we do not mean the same thing.")
To: Reelect President Dubya
I didn't think Nixon was a fan of the RKBA.
To: neverdem; Admin Moderator
Admin: Please add a "(Missouri)" (or "MO" or "State") as a prefix or suffix to the headline to avoid confustion with SCOTUS.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
I didn't think Nixon was a fan of the RKBA. Sort of like having Sarah Brady represent you in court, eh?
To: neverdem
8
posted on
01/22/2004 12:11:55 PM PST
by
optimistically_conservative
(Bill Clinton has called Clark a man of high character and integrity. What more need be said?)
To: Reelect President Dubya
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.....
9
posted on
01/22/2004 1:40:39 PM PST
by
steve8714
To: neverdem
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...
10
posted on
01/22/2004 1:59:53 PM PST
by
teeman8r
To: Vic3O3
Ping to watch for results of the decision.
Semper Fi
11
posted on
01/22/2004 2:10:02 PM PST
by
dd5339
(Happiness is a full VM-II)
To: Reelect President Dubya
Not quite, but same neighhborhood.
To: neverdem; optimistically_conservative
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."
To: XHogPilot
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.
14
posted on
01/22/2004 2:33:23 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: 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. 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.
To: Ancesthntr
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.
16
posted on
01/22/2004 2:37:13 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
"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.
17
posted on
01/22/2004 4:10:01 PM PST
by
tahiti
To: Ancesthntr
AG Nixon hates concealed carry, but if he looses this case his political career in Washington DC is dead meat.
18
posted on
01/22/2004 5:56:16 PM PST
by
TYVets
("An armed society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlein & me)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson