"Then he has the GALL to tell law-abiding voters that WE have NO RIGHT to carry a concealed handgun"
It is not "gall," he is correct:
Section 23, Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights:
"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in the defense of his home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in the aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
If you believe in living free under a constitutional republic, which I do by the way, then you know that there is no constitutionally enumerated RIGHT to carry a concealed handgun, stated in the Missouri Bill of Rights.
If you want that RIGHT to carry concealed weapons, then advocate and begin the arduous task of the AMENDING the Missouri constitution.
Enacting laws, creates no RIGHTS. This is very important to understand. Enacting laws, creates no RIGHTS.
You are making two hugh mistakes by not advocating AMENDING the Missouri constitution versus begging the legislature and the governor to enact a law.
Mistake Number 1:
Asking the legislature for permission or more accurately, the privilege to carry a concealed weapon, through legislation, is precisely that: a privilege, not a RIGHT.
If the legislature can grant a privilege, then they surely can take that privilege away. I do not need to remind you, but I will, that when we citizens abdicated our RIGHT to drive, to the status of a "privilege," we all now know the laws and restrictions that have been enacted and is now attached to that "privilege."
This is the same thing that will happen to the privilege, not the right, to carry a concealed weapon.
Mistake Number 2:
The constitution cannot be amemded by the enactment of a law. Since, the Missouri Bill of Rights, clearly states a prohibition to carry concealed arms, then any such law granting that privilege is inherently unconstitutional
If you do not adhere to the principle of constitutional fidelity, then when the legislature wishes to pass a law violating our Bill of Rights, in the future, on another issue, for instance, you will have no moral high ground to stand on, to oppose it.
Those legislators will remind you that you were so willing to look pass the constitution prohibition on the conceal carry issue, why do you not to the same on this next issue.
Here in Missouri we already have the RIGHT to carry a firearm, in full view of course. Let's exert that right.
Those legislators will remind you that you were so willing to look pass the constitution prohibition on the conceal carry issue, why do you not to the same on this next issue.
In a word, nonsense (excuse me for being direct, but I just replied to you a bit more politely concerning this elsewhere). There is NO "constitution prohibition" on concealed carry. The Missouri Constitution merely makes it clear that the said Constitution did not, in and of itself, create a right to CONCEALED carry. It did absolutely NOTHING to prohibit the legislature from passing a law allowing concealed carry by the law-abiding:
"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."
"This shall not justify" simply means that: The Constitution itself doesn't justify wearing concealed weapons. It doesn't justify driving an automobile or camping in the State parks, either, but people are allowed to do so.
In fact, it can well be argued that due to changes in society since 1875 when the Missouri Constitution was passed (at that time open carry was accepted in society, and concealed carry was only for criminals) -- it can well be argued that due to a fundamental shift in society, the subordinate "shall not justify" clause is now inherently in conflict with the main point, which was that CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ARMED FOR SELF-DEFENSE.
Here in Missouri we already have the RIGHT to carry a firearm, in full view of course. Let's exert that right.
Yeah, we have the right to carry a firearm in full view. Except that if it should happen to end up partially covered by a pillow on your front seat, or not be visible to the cop when he walks up to your car, you'll go down for a FELONY, like a 49-year-old grandmother did in December. Now this woman has NO "right" to possess a firearm for self-defense, for the rest of her life, AND SHE WILL GO TO PRISON FOR FIVE YEARS IF THEY EVER CATCH HER WITH ONE AGAIN. Doesn't matter if someone wants to rape or murder her. Tough &#*@, Granny.
Here in Missouri we already have the RIGHT to carry a firearm, in full view of course. Let's exert that right.
Yeah. Tell that to the residents of our cities, where the local legislators have passed laws SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING OPEN CARRY. Yes, I know they're unconstitutional laws. But do you have $100,000 to fight a series of court battles against an unconstitutional law when they're trying to put you in prison simply for exercising your right? I don't.
But the main point of your post has been answered. There is simply nothing in the Constitution to prevent our legislators providing a pathway for law-citizens to carry concealed. And in fact, it can well be argued that the subordinate "shall not justify" clause in the current Missouri Constitution is now contradictory with the main point, and therefore, unconstitutional in and of itself.