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...

slang · 10-26-2003, 11:42 AM

Ok, the problem seems to be the concealment of firearms here. Why not just allow open carry? Seems like it would solve everyone's objections.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-26-2003, 02:15 PM

Gantt added the clause prohibiting concealed carry when Jesse James was running wild. Open carry was a given and if you didn't see a weapon you could assume the (wo)man was unarmed. Having a weapon concealed was sneaky and despicable.
Times have changed, and open carry is frowned upon. Therefore the thugs have carte blanche to prey on an unarmed public. Just having a law that permits concealed carry makes the thugs think twice, because you never know who's armed. Forced civility?
I'm not naive enough to think this law will solve the crime problem or that there might not be a shooting that wouldn't have occurred had the law not been passed. I do believe however, the good points outweigh the bad, significantly.
The second part of the law to allow concealed carry in a motor vehicle is also important. Example- I'm going some place with a weapon. I stop for lunch or at WalMart and don't want or can't take the weapon inside. Leaving a weapon in the vehicle, in plain sight, is crazy. Driving around with it on the seat, unsecured, is not a smart move either because in a crash it's a hunk of metal flying around. So the best option is in the glove box or trunk.

elSicomoro · 10-26-2003, 03:03 PM

Exactly, Bruce. Like I said, things change.

Slang, I can tell you that allowing open carry (which is allowed with limitations, IIRC) would not resolve opposition.

Let me give you the perspective of an anti-CCW St. Louisan:

Guns are responsible for the violence and urban decay that has plagued the city for many years. They are a particular nuisance to the black community. If you allow CCW, gun battles will erupt on the streets, taking more innocent lives.

Now, let's look at the Sycamore perspective of St. Louis.

The problems that exist in St. Louis are caused by several factors, including:

--The City separating from the County in 1870.
--Deep-seated racial tensions, which still exist today.
--The incredible amount of time it seems to take to get anything done.
--The failure to fully tackle social and public health problems.

But instead of tackling these issues head on, they narrow the scope too much and come up with programs that only temporarily help the situation. Here's an example from 1992-93:

Problem: St. Louis is the murder capital of the US
Solution: Offer a gun buyback program. Give folks $50 for every handgun turned into police. No questions asked.

Okay, so you got some guns off the street. But once you quit offering the money, the number of guns returned bottomed out. And what kind of dent did it put in crime? Probably nothing that couldn't be explained by the nationwide trend of lower crime in the '90s.

Obviously, CCW does not tackle the real problems. But I think it's a start in the right direction.

Radar · 10-28-2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

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

Owning and carrying guns is a right all individuals are born with. No government at any level has the legal or moral authority to tell peaceful citizens what weapons they may or may not own, the number of weapons they may own, the type of ammo they may use, how they must carry their weapons, etc. We're born with a right to carry a weapon regardless of whether or not it is concealed.

wolf · 10-28-2003, 10:06 AM

I'm sure there is something in Radar's opinion on the Second Amendment and Right to Carry where we will part ways, but as it's stated right there, I wholeheartedly agree.

Elspode · 11-07-2003, 04:30 PM

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/...01500011072003

Permanent Injunction Issued Against Concealed-Guns Measure
Federal Judge Rules Law Violates Constitution

POSTED: 1:39 p.m. CST November 7, 2003
UPDATED: 3:34 p.m. CST November 7, 2003

ST. LOUIS -- A St. Louis judge on Friday permanently barred Missouri's concealed-guns law from taking effect, saying it violates the state Constitution.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer made permanent an injunction against the law, which legislators approved in September by overriding a veto by Gov. Bob Holden. A statement from Ohmer said the law violates Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution that states the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

elSicomoro · 11-07-2003, 06:23 PM

Nixon's taking it to the MO Supreme Court though...he's probably got a good chance there.

Interestingly, I was just reading an article in Metro today, where Philadelphia and St. Louis were noted as "judicial hellholes." I'm not surprised.

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...

10-26-2003, 02:15 PM	#3
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Gantt added the clause prohibiting concealed carry when Jesse James was running wild. Open carry was a given and if you didn't see a weapon you could assume the (wo)man was unarmed. Having a weapon concealed was sneaky and despicable. Times have changed, and open carry is frowned upon. Therefore the thugs have carte blanche to prey on an unarmed public. Just having a law that permits concealed carry makes the thugs think twice, because you never know who's armed. Forced civility? I'm not naive enough to think this law will solve the crime problem or that there might not be a shooting that wouldn't have occurred had the law not been passed. I do believe however, the good points outweigh the bad, significantly. The second part of the law to allow concealed carry in a motor vehicle is also important. Example- I'm going some place with a weapon. I stop for lunch or at WalMart and don't want or can't take the weapon inside. Leaving a weapon in the vehicle, in plain sight, is crazy. Driving around with it on the seat, unsecured, is not a smart move either because in a crash it's a hunk of metal flying around. So the best option is in the glove box or trunk. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

10-28-2003, 10:06 AM	#6
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	I'm sure there is something in Radar's opinion on the Second Amendment and Right to Carry where we will part ways, but as it's stated right there, I wholeheartedly agree. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

11-07-2003, 04:30 PM	#7
Elspode When Do I Get Virtual Unreality? Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raytown, Missouri Posts: 12,719	Well, Fuck... http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/...01500011072003 Permanent Injunction Issued Against Concealed-Guns Measure Federal Judge Rules Law Violates Constitution POSTED: 1:39 p.m. CST November 7, 2003 UPDATED: 3:34 p.m. CST November 7, 2003 ST. LOUIS -- A St. Louis judge on Friday permanently barred Missouri's concealed-guns law from taking effect, saying it violates the state Constitution. The ruling by Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer made permanent an injunction against the law, which legislators approved in September by overriding a veto by Gov. Bob Holden. A statement from Ohmer said the law violates Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution that states the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." __________________ "To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog

10-26-2003, 11:42 AM	#2
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	Ok, the problem seems to be the concealment of firearms here. Why not just allow open carry? Seems like it would solve everyone's objections.

10-26-2003, 03:03 PM	#4
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Exactly, Bruce. Like I said, things change. Slang, I can tell you that allowing open carry (which is allowed with limitations, IIRC) would not resolve opposition. Let me give you the perspective of an anti-CCW St. Louisan: Guns are responsible for the violence and urban decay that has plagued the city for many years. They are a particular nuisance to the black community. If you allow CCW, gun battles will erupt on the streets, taking more innocent lives. Now, let's look at the Sycamore perspective of St. Louis. The problems that exist in St. Louis are caused by several factors, including: --The City separating from the County in 1870. --Deep-seated racial tensions, which still exist today. --The incredible amount of time it seems to take to get anything done. --The failure to fully tackle social and public health problems. But instead of tackling these issues head on, they narrow the scope too much and come up with programs that only temporarily help the situation. Here's an example from 1992-93: Problem: St. Louis is the murder capital of the US Solution: Offer a gun buyback program. Give folks $50 for every handgun turned into police. No questions asked. Okay, so you got some guns off the street. But once you quit offering the money, the number of guns returned bottomed out. And what kind of dent did it put in crime? Probably nothing that couldn't be explained by the nationwide trend of lower crime in the '90s. Obviously, CCW does not tackle the real problems. But I think it's a start in the right direction.

11-07-2003, 06:23 PM	#8
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Nixon's taking it to the MO Supreme Court though...he's probably got a good chance there. Interestingly, I was just reading an article in Metro today, where Philadelphia and St. Louis were noted as "judicial hellholes." I'm not surprised.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)