The Cellar - View Single Post - Concealed Weapons and the Missouri Constitution

elSicomoro · 10-26-2003, 11:32 AM

As we've been discussing in the Manifestos, the Missouri Legislature passed a law which would allow permits to be issued for carrying concealed weapons, effective October 11th. Unfortunately, some whiny ass bastards in St. Louis got a temporary injunction against the law, and it is currently on hold.

The anti-CCW lobby is using a section of the Missouri Constitution to plead its case...Article I, Section 23, which states:

"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."

The core argument from what I've read is "the legislature has no power to allow concealed weapons" vs. "the Constitution specifically gives the legislature the power to allow concealed weapons" (argued by Missouri's attorney general--a staunch Democrat, and supported by the NRA).

A full copy of the Missouri Constitution is available here.

(I am dying to hear Radar's take on this.)

The secondary argument is that it will cost more to maintain the system than the $100 that each individual will be required to pay for a permit. Jackson County (one of the 4 counties in which Kansas City resides) is the main whiner on this one.

This article, from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, discusses the guy that is apparently responsible for said clause.

Also important to note is that Missouri voters narrowly defeated Proposition B in 1999, which would have allowed CCW, 52 to 48%. The main opposition came from St. Louis City (74% voted no) and St. Louis County (70% voted no). It had passed in all but 6 counties. But when two of your counties contain 1/4 of the population of the entire state, and they staunchly oppose a law...

So, what do you guys think? Being a native Missourian, I say that the Legislature has the right to pass this bill. This isn't the first time that a Legislature has gone around a voter proposition. Not to mention, we vote the Legislature of our states in as representatives for us. By electing them, we expect (and hope) that they will pass laws that are in our best interests.

And I think Missourians should have the right to carry concealed weapons. Section 23 was added in a distant time, in a different state of affairs. Times change, and people change. And CCW seems to work fairly well in the 44 other states that allow it.

Missourians are a bit stupid, but not stupid enough to be unable to handle CCW.

Goddamned St. Louisans and Kansas Citians...

10-26-2003, 11:32 AM	#1
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Concealed Weapons and the Missouri Constitution As we've been discussing in the Manifestos, the Missouri Legislature passed a law which would allow permits to be issued for carrying concealed weapons, effective October 11th. Unfortunately, some whiny ass bastards in St. Louis got a temporary injunction against the law, and it is currently on hold. The anti-CCW lobby is using a section of the Missouri Constitution to plead its case...Article I, Section 23, which states: "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." The core argument from what I've read is "the legislature has no power to allow concealed weapons" vs. "the Constitution specifically gives the legislature the power to allow concealed weapons" (argued by Missouri's attorney general--a staunch Democrat, and supported by the NRA). A full copy of the Missouri Constitution is available here. (I am dying to hear Radar's take on this.) The secondary argument is that it will cost more to maintain the system than the $100 that each individual will be required to pay for a permit. Jackson County (one of the 4 counties in which Kansas City resides) is the main whiner on this one. This article, from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, discusses the guy that is apparently responsible for said clause. Also important to note is that Missouri voters narrowly defeated Proposition B in 1999, which would have allowed CCW, 52 to 48%. The main opposition came from St. Louis City (74% voted no) and St. Louis County (70% voted no). It had passed in all but 6 counties. But when two of your counties contain 1/4 of the population of the entire state, and they staunchly oppose a law... So, what do you guys think? Being a native Missourian, I say that the Legislature has the right to pass this bill. This isn't the first time that a Legislature has gone around a voter proposition. Not to mention, we vote the Legislature of our states in as representatives for us. By electing them, we expect (and hope) that they will pass laws that are in our best interests. And I think Missourians should have the right to carry concealed weapons. Section 23 was added in a distant time, in a different state of affairs. Times change, and people change. And CCW seems to work fairly well in the 44 other states that allow it. Missourians are a bit stupid, but not stupid enough to be unable to handle CCW. Goddamned St. Louisans and Kansas Citians...