Missouri Concealed Weapon Law Unconstitutional!

[Gore1FL]

Missouri's new concealed gun law was put on hold Friday when a judge issued a temporary restraining order on constitutional grounds and the state Supreme Court decided to take no immediate action on an appeal.


They cited a section of the Bill of Rights from the 1945 Missouri Constitution declaring the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" and a similar clause in the 1875 version stating "nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons."

We had a state wide vote on this issue a few years back and it failed -- despite outstate votes who though concealed weapons were for "Turkey hunting".

The legislature passed the law, it was veto'd. The veto was overridden, and now the court has nailed it.

Maybe the will of the majority will win out this time afterall.

[Gore1FL]

1. Oops -- Forgot the link:

http://www.kmov.com/topstories/kmov_localnews_031011_concealedweaponsruling.b3bc665.html

[MissMarple]

2. At one time concealed weapons were thought to be cowardly.

How times do change. Hurray for Missouri.

Now what does "well regulated" mean?

[Kamika]

16. too bad criminals dont care

They just want your money, they dont care if its cowardly or not

[Man_in_the_Moon]

3. Woo Woo

An Anti-gun judge misreads the Constitution (of both the State and the US) in an effort to give the State to the Pugs in '04.


Thanks...

For nothing.

As to the 'Will of the Majority' maybe Alabama should hold a vote as to whether or not the 10 Commandments should be displayed.

Or maybe Each state should have a vote on abortion.

'The will of the majority' is very very dangerous.

[Gore1FL]

4. Misread?

what part of "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" is being misread.

I mean, I know i have a public school education from Missouri, but whe n I read "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons", I pretty much take it to mean "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons".

As far as the U.S. constitution, it does NOT guarentee concealed weapons.

Please explain how the jusdge misread either document. Thanks in advance.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

8. It means precisely what it says.

The Missouri Constitution-

"Section 23. 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."

Clearly means that someone cannot use the MO Constitution's 'Right to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property' to justify using concealed weapons, but it not a Bar from the legislature passing a law allowing the public to do so. In order for it to mean what this judge says it means it would have had to use totally different language.

The judge clearly is intentionally and dishonestly interpreting the MO Constitution to read what he wants it to in order to advance his own personal political agenda. Funny it was really bad with the SCOTUS did it in Dec of 2000, but when a judge does something someone agrees with such obvious and intentional judicial dishonesty seems to be accepted.

As to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, well what do you think 'shall not be infringed' means? Would not banning someone who is a peaceable and non-criminal citizen from being able to bear arms just because they might so happen to be concealed be an 'infringment' of that citizens right to keep and bear arms?

[Gore1FL]

9. The right to bear arms is NOT infringed

by not carrying concealed weapons -- just ask the writers of the Missouri Constitution. By your argument, Jose Paddilla had every right to make a dirty bomb (though it is questionable that he planned to) -- I guess you'd had to see his right infringed.

What the SCOTUS did in 2000 has nothign to do with this. They pre-empted the Constitutional process. This judge is using the text of the Constitution.

I am sorry that you cannot interpret the US constitution, or read the plain statment that the right to bear arms does NOT include concealed weapons.

When you take the Constitution vs a law, the constitution wins.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

10. The Constitution Wins

Yeap.

Until judges begin to corrupt what it says, by intentionally and dishonestly misinterpreting the plain wording of it to push forward their personal political agenda.

The the Constitution loses. And if the Constitution loses then the People lose.

But I guess as long as we agree with the corruption then it is a good thing.

Sigh.....

Maybe we already have lost...

[Gore1FL]

11. Then why are you doing it?

You manipulated the 2nd Ammedment of the U.S. Constitution and Section 23 of the MO constitution.

I don't agree with the cotrruption of the Constitution. Neither does the judge. Evidently neither does the MO Supreme Court who at least at this time, has chosen to take no action on the ruling.

You are being fundamentally dishonest in your assesmnet and as of yet have been unable to justify your position in terms of the U.S. Constitution (a position that has been proven false by previous SCOTUS ruling) or the Missouri Constitution which specifiaclly mentions that the right to bear arms does not include concealed weapons.

Spin it all you want. But none of your assertations are correct. The rulling is not an upheaval of either constitution -- the proposed law was.

Sorry if this offends you. I strongly suggest you document your arguemnt better if you wish to pursue it. At this point you are expressing opinions already declared incorrect and cementing them with a interpretation of a law stating "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" as meanig something other than "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons".

Please come up with a better argument, or at least find some shred of legal documentation that in some way supports your viewpoint.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

13. Show me the SCOTUS ruling

I am not the one manipulating the MO Constitution, and the US Constituion. I am simply reading the plain language of it, not attempting to distort it by only reading parts while ignoring whole sections simply because they dont agree with my argument.

Calling me dishonest could be considered a Personal attack, but I will not take it as such. It simply shows you are willing to attack those that disagree with you instead of listening to what they are saying.

As to your claim of a SCOTUS ruling, are you perhaps speaking of Miller? (the only SCOTUS case that directly, sorta, addressed the 2nd Amendment)

OR maybe one of the other 35 cases it has been mentioned by a Justice?

If you are speaking if Miller then you are entirely incorrect as to what it said. You have bought into propaganda.

Miller in essence states that any weapon of Military use cannot be taxed, or regulated, or infringed upon. But Miller is a poorly written decision on a poor case. (Miller presented no argument before the SCOTUS) I bet that is not something an anti-gunner would every say, even though that it the best intrepretation of what the actual case says.

I could go into an extensive history of the Miller decision, but then that would simply be a repeat of what I have done several times before in the J/PS.

Anyone who would base any sort of gun control law on it would be standing on shaky ground.

Any one who would distort the Basic Rights of teir fellow citizens in order to further their own personal bias is either misguided or dangerous to liberty as a whole. If you support the misinterpretation of this part of the law to support a position you hold, they you have no ground to complain when someone else does that to support a postion they hold.

[Gore1FL]

14. I am refferring to any SCOTUS rulling concerning gun control laws

The Assault weapon ban, for example, is unconstitutional by your standards, yet it was upheld by what many consider to be a blatently right-wing court.

I am not attacking you. I am pointing out you don't know. That is a big difference. You are, therefore, correct in not taking it as such -- just as I didn't take your unfounded implication of hypocracy to by a personal attack.

The MO constitution plainly states that the right to bear arms does not include concealed weapons.

That means:

The 2nd Ammendment of the US Constitution does not protect the right to concealed weapons (This ios clear recognized, othjerwise a law would not be needed at the state level)

Section 23 of Missouri plainly states that the right to bear arms does not include concealed weapons.

You can argue all you want, but it doesn't make you right. I have the wording of 2 Constitutions, Judges from accross the politcal spectrum and the precident of any gun law ever before the SCOTUS.

You have, speculation, NRA propaganda, and a lot of spin on your side.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

15. What case?

The Assault weapon ban, for example, is unconstitutional by your standards, yet it was upheld by what many consider to be a blatently right-wing court.

What case is this?

Because it would be a most important decision. And I most certainly think that the AW ban is unConstitutional.

Section 23 of Missouri plainly states that the right to bear arms does not include concealed weapons.

Wow, you are actually correct here. But the MO Constitution also does not bar the legislature from allowing the citizenry to carry concealed.

[Gore1FL]

17. What part of any, are you unsure of?

If it deals with gun restrictions, it fits.

Wow, you are actually correct here.

Been all along.

But the MO Constitution also does not bar the legislature from allowing the citizenry to carry concealed.

but it is NOT JUSTIFIED -- It says so in black and white. If it is NOT JUSTIFIED it is typically considered NOT JUSTIFIED. When Somethig is saaid to be NOT JUSTIFIED in the constitution, laws that try to justify it are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

You see NOT JUSTIFIED means just that. Untilt he Constitution is changed, it will always read tha t concealed weapons are NOT JUSTIFIED.

Now, if you'd like to parse this further feel free to do so. You'll still be documentably wrong.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

18. Spin Spin Spin, Where is your case? -nt

[Gore1FL]

19. Pick one

I said any. That means any. If it dealt with gun control legislation, it flies in the face of you asertation. If your assemement was correct, any and all pieces of gun control legislation would have been struck down as unconstitutional. There are plenty that have not. Take your pick.

I assume you know how to do a google search?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

20. You specifically said that the AW ban had been upheld

Prove it.

Tell me which case before the SCOTUS upheld it.

Or will you admit that such a case does not actually exist?

[Gore1FL]

21. If there wasn't a case it was defacto upheld.

This is not rocket science, despuite your attempts to make it so.

The United States Supreme Court has never struck down a law controlling gun ownership based on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I repeat the U.S. Supreme Court has never found a gun control law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.


http://www.secondamendmentfacts.com/USvMiller.htm

http://www.secondamendmentfacts.com/USvCruikshank.htm

http://www.secondamendmentfacts.com/RobertsonvBaldwin.htm


Face it your interpretation of "shall not infringe" differes with over 100 years of SCOTUS cases (those taken, and those not heard)

This difference with over a century of argubly the greatest legal minds that the US has had make me easily call into question your interprestation of the Missouri Constitution as well.

Now, for fun. It is your turn. Find 1 (one) case whenre the U.S. Supreme Court, in the History of the Republic, found a gun control law unconstitutional based on the second amendment.

(Hint: there aren't any)

[Man_in_the_Moon]

22. Find me one case

That has clearly said that a citizen of the US does not have a right to keep and bear arms (Hint- There isnt any). Miller does not even come close to saying what that site you linked to. But then I have noticed that you seem to support opinions that take one line out of context and read something totally different than the true meaning of what is said, as long as you agree with the motive behind this dishonesty and misrepresentation.

I love the propaganda site you linked to. It distorts what the court really said as bad as the Brady's and the NRA does.

Again I ask you to list a specific case that supports your statement that the AW ban has been upheld.

The ruling of Miller is basically that if any weapon can be shown to have a 'military or militia' use then it is outside the realm of being taxed or otherwise regulated. You have to take that into the context that Miller of Miller had no represenation and presented no case before the SCOTUS, and so did not present evidence to support the lower courts dismissal of the case against him on 2nd Amendment grounds. Since to evidence to support the dismissal was not put before the SCOTUS it basically said 'we cannot support the dismissal because we have no evidence for it' the case must be heard by the lower court. It is too bad the Lower court never heard the case.

Here is a hint for you, go out and read all the cases in their entirity, even the lower courts decisions to see exactly what issue the SCOTUS was addressing. Dont rely upon propaganda sites or organizations to give you your opinion.

[Gore1FL]

24. That isn't my argument. never was. lets get back on topic

I never said that US citizens didn't have the right to bear arms. I said that the Second Amendment has never stopped gun control legislation. Additionally, the right to bear arms, when not in violation of state laws (such as the concealed ban in the MO constitution) the right is defacto held up by the 10th Amendment.

Your interepretation of "shall not infringe" is wrong and documentably so.

Please don't change the argument when you are proven wrong. It doesn't work here -- especially when you put words into people's mouths.

Unless you can find a case where gun legislation was cut down because of the "shall not infringe" statement of the Constitution, your argument fails.

Likewise, the failed argument calls into question your accuracy in interpreting Missouri Law.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

25. You have yet to prove me wrong

Ok then, you make the claim that my intepretation of 'shall not infringe' is wrong and documentably so why dont you prove it?

[Gore1FL]

26. I just did

There is no case when gun control law was struck down because of the Second Amendment.

Did you get that?

There is no case when gun control law was struck down because of the Second Amendment.

Let me repeat

There is no case when gun control law was struck down because of the Second Amendment.

Now unless you content there has never ever ever been any gun control legislation the very fact that:

There is no case when gun control law was struck down because of the Second Amendment

Should pretty much be all the proof you need.


You see, because:

There is no case when gun control law was struck down because of the Second Amendment,

Your "shall not infringe" interpreation flies in the face of gun control laws heard and gun control laws not taken by the SCOTUS.

QED

[Man_in_the_Moon]

27. BLah blah blah

where is your proof?

Reciting the same innane phrase does nothing to prove the things you have claimed in this thread, or to prove that my interpretion is erroneous.

It really is a shame that you cannot, or will not, prove your claims, because then we may have had a meaningful discussion.

BTW- you probably should change your name, since the SCOTUS clearly said that Mr Gore did not win FL. I guess since you believe in its perfect infallibility, and its not being a politically biased body, that you find its decision in Gore v Bush to be entirely accurate and just. Hmm?

Naa, I bet you feel (rightly) that the SCOTUS misused its power for its own political ends. It is too bad that you cannot see that that is exactly what this MO Judge in the case that started this entire discussion, that judge misused his power for his own political ends.

[Gore1FL]

28. OK it is your claim -- you prove it

Please cite an example where "Concealed Weapon Laws" were considered a infringment by the supreme court.

If you can, please explain how the statement in section 23 of the MO Constitution was not challenged as being in conflict with the Federal Constittution.

Once again you are parsing. Additonally, the SCOTUS did not say that Gore didn;t wion FLorida, itr said there wasn;t enough time to count the votes. You really are having factual issues.

As you keep going back to the judge who made the decsion as being partisan, please provide proof. So far you have done nothing but make claims you cannot back up and that I have shown to be wrong repetetively.

You haver also called the text of Supreme Court Decisions to be propagand because of the site that housed them. By your logic, If DU had a copy of Lincoln's Gettysberg Address, you wouold consider it liberaly biased based on its location here.

Support your claim or admit defeat.

[jafap]

23. what about the Constitution vs. Godzilla?

I think your logic is lacking, but legal logic is not the same as mathematical logic, and I have studied math and not law.

My understanding is that the Missouri constitution does not guarantee a right to carry concealed weapons by section 23. However, I see nothing in section 23 that prohibits carrying concealed weapons. Presumably the current prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in Missouri was created by a Missouri statute. If that is true, then it is a tacit admission that section 23 does not prohibit concealed weapons. Thus the current law is not going against the constitution but only against another law.

To me "not justified" does not mean the same thing as "not allowed". Any action, whether justified or not, is allowed until it is prohibited by law. However, if it was justified, then in order to prohibit that action you would need a constitutional amendment.

[Lexingtonian]

12. learn to read, pal

In order to get around the bars provided, the Legislature has to provide some new citizen interest as rationale for permitting concealed weapons. E.g. hunting a vicious form of puppy-eating squirrel that is so smart it can't be hunted by people with nonconcealed firearms.

This is very cleverly worded. And yes, the USSC has always dodged answering the question of whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right to firearms because no such thing can be found in it. You live in a jurisprudential loophole that will be closed when the civilized outnumber the uncivilized in this country.

[Gore1FL]

5. Will of the People

I stand for democracy. I also stand for constitutional law.

The 10 commandment reference violates the U.S. 1st Amendment. I don;t know the vote total of Alabamians for and or against, so i cannot comment on the other.

In the Missouri case the will of the people (based on the prop-B vote) coupled with the verbatim statement in the MO Constituion supports both.

The will of the majority trumps when it is constitutional. Anything less leans strongly away from everyhthing this country is supposed to stand for.

[Gore1FL]

6. 3rd point

Why would the overturning of a law which previously was unpopular in a statewide proposition give the state to the GOP?

Does overturning laws on Constitutional law basis automatically deliver a stste to the GOP? Please explain.

[Judi Lynn]

29. I definitely appreciate your pointing out that when the matter

was put to a vote of the Missouri citizens, CCW LOST, BIG TIME.

THAT'S what the people of Missouri want. Most of the people are still more well-balanced than the unbalanced, pre-verbal, mentally challenged fringe types who prefer to claim the right to sneak around, carrying covertly, ready to blast the bejeezus out of anyone they deem worthy of punishment.

They are sneaky, dishonest, violent people, who don't have the strength to grow up. Fortunately for Missouri, they are a distinct minority. I hope they lose this battle, even thought they pool their little Republican, racist shekels to buy the biggest lawyers they can afford to represent their unworthy, unwholesome interests.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. The Override Was Passed by One Vote...Where the Deciding Vote

Was a Thug who received an unauthorized leave of absence from military service to return home and break the deadlock.

This law is bullshit.

DTH

[Judi Lynn]

30. He also lied about it originally,

claiming it was his own funds bringing him back to Missouri from Guantanamo.

Actually the Republican Party treated him to a chartered jet, costing over 7,000 dollars. He told reporters at first that he financed it himself.

Yeah, but he didn't wag his finger in our faces.................

Didn't lie under oath, so he's o.k. Fact is, Repukes were ecstatic over this. Big photo in some paper of the loons standing around, big toothy, sloppy smiles, yukking it up, celebrating their grand rip off of Missourians.

[greekspeak]

31. I put this law in the class with the Texas & California BS

This CC law is very contentious in Missouri. The majority voted not to enact concealed carry. Yet the supporters of the law suggest that the number of counties that voted for CC was greater than the number that did not vote for it. So it should have won. Keen logic. In fact, republican idiots the state over seem to think that the number of counties should be the deciding factor in just about any vote, rather than the majority. Missouri is a strange state...there is a highly populated "liberal corridor" between KC and St. Louis. And, in the bootheel, there are still democrats who are democrats cause Dad and Grandad were. This is what makes Missouri a swing state..the populations in those two areas versus the rest of the state are pretty equal.

The now republican-controled legislature saw a fine opportunity to override the will of the people, just like republicans decided to redistrict Texas, and just like they took away California's elected governor.