Posted on 12/01/2019 4:48:46 AM PST by marktwain
A Democrat Missouri District Court judge, appointed after the lawsuit was filed, has ruled the lawsuit against the University of Missouri for violating the new Missouri Constitutional provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms, does not apply to the University. The judge claims he followed the requirements for “strict scrutiny” when he did so.
On August 5, 2014, the citizens of Missouri passed a Constitutional amendment to strengthen the protection of the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri. From ballotpedia.org:
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 and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.[1]
On 19 September 2015, Professor of law Royce Barondes filed a lawsuit, based on the new amendment, challenging the complete ban of firearms on the University of Missouri campus, except for those granted special privileges by the University administration.
On April 22, 2016, Democrat Governor Nixon appointed Democrat politician Jeff Harris to the position of judge in the 13th Circuit. Harris was Governor Nixon's policy director at the time of his appointment.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
“...under no circumstances...” really means “except where we don’t like that”.
DemocRAT policy director becomes judge and issues political judicial decision.... all going according to plan.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Leftist or Progressive judges do not believe in God. Oaths mean nothing to them, unless there is force backing up the oath.
The Amendment is clear. The Democrats do not like it, so the judge simply says it doesn’t matter, I can do what I want.
IOW,there are states where *most* of the apples in the barrel are rotten.
Ok Judge. And for the safety of yourself, and the court, the Baliff will be armed with?
An early, succinct version of Orwell's 1984.
If there is no law, there is no law
A tyrannical judge has no protection on his life under the law
Does MO have concealed carry?
If so, bet the judge has a permit...
All the great authors foresaw this day.
The judge ruled a total ban on arms, except for those specifically allowed by the University administration, was "narrowly crafted" to preserve the right to keep and bear arms because "safety".
They shall call good, evil, and evil, good.
I forget the verse...
Well YEAH. I think God might foresee the future, being as He exists in all times at once.
:)
Besides, this isn’t the first time in history this verse was true.
OH! Those are some GREAT lampposts! So many places to attach things!
BTW, great to see you around, Dean.... :)
That they can not be trusted with a firearm should be viewed as a tremendous indictment against that college or university's admission program, student life program and general academic program.
In a sane world, no local, state or federal law enforcement agency or military would recruit from such an institution. Rationally, if the University doesn't trust their students with a firearm, why should a prospective employer trust their graduates?
Constitutional carry state.
Overview
Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. Strict scrutiny is often used by courts when a plaintiff sues the government for discrimination. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review which a court will use to evaluate the constitutionality of governmental discrimination. The other two standards are intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review.
Application
Equal Protection
Strict scrutiny will often be invoked in an equal protection claim. For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have passed a law that infringes upon a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications include race, national origin, religion, and alienage.
Other Applications
The application of strict scrutiny, however, extends beyond issues of equal protection. Restrictions on content-based speech, for instance, are to be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard as well. Notably, the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations, leaving open the question of which precise standard of review is to be employed when addressing the Second Amendment.
From Legal Information Institute
Lawyers... Don't you just hate those guys....
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.