Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Ok....lets try this...I think we already have Constitutional Carry in MO

  1. #1
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Cool Ok....lets try this...I think we already have Constitutional Carry in MO

    Follow along..

    Section 4 of the Missouri Constitution;

    Independence of Missouri—submission of certain amendments to Constitution of the United States.—That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States;

    2ND AMENDMENT…AS APPROVED BY CONGRESS;

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    No where does it say anything about concealed or open carry.

    Section 4 of Missouri, clearly states that it is "subject to the Constitution of the United States".

    Now section 23 as we all know;

    Section 23. Right to keep and bear arms—exception.—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.


    Thus Section 4 makes “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” null and void, because Missouri is subject to the Constitution of the United States, which there is no mention of concealed weapons. Therefore, permits are in fact unconstitutional. This is even more evident if you take in account McDonald vs. Chicago which “affirmed” that the 2nd Amendment, "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

    So...Missouri has to follow its own constitution, Section 4, and subject it self to the Constitution of the United States and accept McDonald vs. Chicago as an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment as it "applies to the states" and strike down the "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons", which in turn wipes out the statute that allowed CCW.


    YEAH!!!!!! Constitutional Carry!!!!

    Maybe I am grasping for straws….but looks pretty clear to me.

    Well...clear as mud!! LOL!!
    Last edited by zekester; 04-11-2012 at 04:58 PM.
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    107
    The Missouri Supreme court has already ruled on this a few times..

    Yes the Missouri Constitution does protect the right of citizens to defend themselves with firearms.
    But the Missouri Constitution also gives the state legislature the power to regulate 'a proper time and place' for the carry of those arms. I'll see if I can find the court cases again. Seems like State V. Stokes is the correct case, but it's been a while.

  3. #3
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665
    Has nothing to do with with post, but would love to see it...
    Last edited by zekester; 04-12-2012 at 05:17 PM.
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    I like your thinking but unfortunately we are forced into arguing semantics with our government. Because blurring the definitions of legal rights to fit an agenda is what they're good at, and people are dumb enough to get sucked into it.

    we all know how the Constitution and bill of rights were meant to be interpreted.

    The government, however, loves to argue for the sake of their own survival.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Shooter64738 View Post
    The Missouri Supreme court has already ruled on this a few times..

    Yes the Missouri Constitution does protect the right of citizens to defend themselves with firearms.
    But the Missouri Constitution also gives the state legislature the power to regulate 'a proper time and place' for the carry of those arms. I'll see if I can find the court cases again. Seems like State V. Stokes is the correct case, but it's been a while.
    Please do!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    107
    I don't see how my post wasn't applicable to the thread, as it applies to constitutional carry, but none the less here we go:
    From State V. Richard
    The state constitutional right to keep and bear arms, like the Second Amendment, is not absolute. The state has the inherent power to regulate the carrying of firearms as a proper exercise of the police power. State v. Horne, 622 S.W.2d 956, 957 (Mo. banc 1981).4
    From State V. Heidbrink
    "It is the function of the courts to determine whether a statute purporting to constitute an exercise of the police power has a real and substantial relationship to the protection of the public health, safety, morals or welfare and whether it unjustifiably invades rights secured by the Constitution." State ex rel. Kansas City, Mo. v. Public Service Commission of Mo., 524 S.W.2d 855, 862 (Mo. banc 1975).
    Article 1, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution 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." Although this constitutional provision establishes a right to keep and bear arms, such right is neither absolute nor unconditional. For example, Missouri courts have recognized that Article 1, section 23 does not deprive the legislature of the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of bearing firearms. City of Cape Girardeau v. Joyce, 884 S.W.2d 33, 34-35 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); see State v. Van Horne, 622 S.W.2d 956, 957 (Mo. 1981). In addition, "Numerous jurisdictions have recognized that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms under a state constitution is not absolute and that reasonable regulatory control by the Legislature to promote the safety and welfare of its citizens uniformly has been upheld." Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1044 (R.I. 2004); see 86 A.L.R.4th 931.
    From Joyce V. Cape
    Every constitution adopted by the citizens of the State of Missouri since its inception in 1820 has contained language virtually identical to that of Article I, Section 23. However, such constitutional provisions have never been held to deprive the General Assembly of authority to enact laws which regulate the time, place and manner of bearing firearms. In 1881, one Wilforth was convicted of violating a statute which prohibited the carrying of a firearm into a church or place of religious worship. In upholding the statute against a constitutional challenge, the Missouri Supreme Court adopted the language of the Supreme Court of Alabama in State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, and stated "the constitution, in declaring that every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state, has neither expressly or by implication denied to the legislature the right to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be borne." State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528, 530, 41 Am.Rep. 330 (1881).
    When the Missouri Legislature passed the preemption bill in 1986, they gained a lot of ground. Counties and cities used to regulate and tax firearms any way they wished. The only way to get the bill passed was to allow them to regulate the time, place, and manner of open carry, and the discharge of firearms. I know many think it sucks the way it is, but imagine paying $30 for a box of 22 ammo because the tax was 300%. We need to get open carry preempted by changing 21.750 to preempt open carry.

    There is simply no winning a constitutional argument that Article 1 Section 23 guarantees a persons right to bear arms where ever they want, when ever they want, and how ever they want. You can believe that, you can think that, you can tell your friends, you can post it on facebook, but when it comes to the courts, it isn't relevant. State legislature has the power to regulate the time, place and manner of open carry. And they gave that same power to the counties, cities and municipalities as well. If we get preemption we take the power out of the hands of the counties and cities.

    Option 2 is to get the Missouri Constitution amended so that the State Legislature does NOT have the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner that arms are carried and THEN you can carry where you want, when you want. I'm thinking thats a long shot though.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    St. Joseph, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Shooter64738 View Post
    Option 2 is to get the Missouri Constitution amended so that the State Legislature does NOT have the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner that arms are carried and THEN you can carry where you want, when you want. I'm thinking thats a long shot though.
    Lol. That's not a long shot at all. That's hitting a dime on a fence post at 1000 yards with a Derringer.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    In other words, the High Court has held that every citizen in Missouri does not have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property.

    How can the safety and welfare of the citizens be uniformly upheld if there are restrictions on the time, place and manner of bearing firearms?

    Is there not a lawyer in this state that can articulate in a manner that reveals to the High Court the error of their past rulings?

    Preemption.....the correcting of RSMo 21.750.3 is not a goal that will be reached given the slew of past court rulings.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quoting state case law only proves that both the state and federal constitutions are being violated.

    The state claims to be subject to the federal constitution, and the federal constitution says "shall not be infringed". Regulation is infringement, use a damn dictionary. I am truly sick of legal wrangling and a failure of the courts to read what is plainly written. Any regulation is a violation of our natural right to self defense, which is protected by LAW, the constitution. Those of you that feel the state has a right to regulate lack the sense God gave to the beasts. This is a clear enumeration of federal jurisdiction and the states have usurped authority. I believe in state powers, but the bearing of arms is CLEARLY not one of them. You have let the lawyers trick you. Learn to read, comprehend and explain these simple facts and you will avoid confusion. Confusion is how lawyers get paid. They specialize in confusion. For those of you who care what the Bible says, lawyers are listed with murderers and other evil people. Read Galatians 5 and it will be clear what I am saying. For those who don't care about that, it should still be obvious how evil they are, living off the pain and confusion of other people caused by the very laws written by other lawyers in the legislature.

    Summary:
    Defense is our natural right.
    The federal constitution was ratified and accepted by each state before it joined the union.
    Missouri constitution declares submission to said constitution which says "shall not be infringed".
    Therefore, ANY LAW REGULATING ARMS IS ILLEGAL ON ITS FACE.

    PERIOD. The rest is legal ******** to get around the law. They need to get in line before we are forced to put them in their place. Quit talking like lawyers and start talking like free men... Unless you prefer slavery.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    "The problem with Internet quotes is that no one has verified the source" -- Abraham Lincoln

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •