Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 10/12/2005 10:18:55 AM PDT by freepatriot32
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court won’t consider a challenge to a provision of the state’s concealed gun law. Without comment, the state’s highest court let stand a lower court's ruling that there's no absolute right to bear arms in Missouri.
The case focuses on whether people seeking permits to carry concealed guns must answer questions from county sheriffs about their criminal history or military service. Missouri's concealed-carry law lets sheriffs deny permits for various reasons -- including a discharge from the military "under dishonorable conditions."
The sheriff of St. Charles County filed an appeal after a circuit judge ordered him to grant a permit to a man whose military discharge the sheriff wanted to investigate further. A panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals this year overturned the order, ruling that the applicant had to answer the sheriff's questions fully.
The decision by the state Supreme Court essentially upholds the appeals court's decision.
P s boycott the state of Missouri
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
That pesky 2nd ammendment again. The BOR was written for lawyers to interpret not those commoners! Does this stop it dead or can it be brought to SCOTUS?
“[t]hat 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.”
Pretty straightforward.
Hopefully, this will help calm you down: At least the MSC didn't actually issue a ruling that would have created a terrible precedent at the MSC level, and that would have been binding Missouri-wide. Some of the Jusices may have voted against hearing the case precisely for this reason.
"Does this stop it dead or can it be brought to SCOTUS?"
It could be brought to the SCOTUS, but would not be heard by them. It's another bad case to bring, if testing the right of states to prohibit firearms ownership by felons, the mentally ill, and even dishonorably discharged former military personnel is not the issue.
It's a poor 2nd Amendment case. Instead, a case where a local Sheriff has denied a permit to someone for reasons other than these should be brought.
Only a tiny percentage of Americans believe that felons and mentally ill persons should be armed. It's a bad case.
That seems patently unfair as it could be for something relatively minor that in the civilian world would be a misdemeanor, and thus not a disqualifying factor. Say like losing your cool and slapping-striking some jackass Major, or flipping off a Lt General. (hi cousin Tommy, ya idiot)
Note, I'm not EXCUSING bad behavior but I would think the REASON for the DD would-should be the determining factor; insubordination no, felony yes.
The Supreme Court's action deals only with Missouri's concealed-carry law, not the right to possess a firearm in one's home to protect life and property. Having said that, don't be suprised if the state legislature and governor take care of this situation by removing the broad discretion now granted sheriffs. Very conservative state legislature and governor, but liberal supreme court justices appointed by the late Mel Carnahan.
Should 14-year-olds be allowed? Felons? The mentally ill? Fugitives from justice? Those with a valid restraining order againt them?
Where does the second amendment stand on it?
"Men In BLACK"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It hasnt been that straightforward since the 14th amendment was ratified.States cannot outlaw homosexual sodomy anymore becasue the supreme court said that was unconstitutional and thier rulings overides everything(I dont agree that that should bethe case btw but thats the law of the land for the time being).Missouri cannot outlaw concealed carry because the united states constitutions 2cd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the us constitution trumps anything a state constitution says.
You don't believe that the citizens of a state should be allowed to reasonably decide who gets to post government supremacist claptrap to the internet legally?
Should 14-year-olds be allowed? Felons? The mentally ill? Fugitives from justice? Those with a valid restraining order againt them? The First Amendment notwithstanding, naturally.
If you want this right in the state either have the legislature pass a rock solid bill or amend the Constitution of the state of Missouri
"Missouri is a "shall issue" state, meaning that a county or city sheriff must issue a permit to carry a concealable firearm if the applicant:
-- Has not been discharged under dishonorable conditions from the United States armed forces;"
I would guess that if the dishonorable discharge was due to insubordination, the sheriff may issue a permit, given the way it's worded. But it does not say the sheriff cannot issue a permit.
In the above case, the applicant refused to answer questions about his discharge. The sheriff, imo, acted properly.
The constitution was amended to guarantee certain rights to all citizens of the United States. Among those amendments was number 2.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't, since the above case does not involve any federal law, only state law. The state constitution prevails, and the law under it says that the sheriff does not have to issue a permit.
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.