OK..Legal Minds...Wrap ur mind around this!!..

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 "subject to the Constitution of the United States".

Now section 23 of the Missouri Constitution;

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!!

Except that the Heller and McDonald decisions stated that bans on concealed carry were 'presumtively' constitutional. Not absolutely constitutional, but 'presumptively' constitutional. In legalese, this means that the constitutionality of concealed carry is legally rebuttable, but that argument is years away from being properly considered by the Supreme Court.

Yes, obviously a ban on concealed carry cannot logically be justified. Open carry is only practical during fair weather and is almost totally unsuited for many classes of law-abiding citizens (most notably women). On a positive note, concealed carry is rapidly becoming the accepted norm in 'most' of America. Constitutional Carry has passed in 3 states* and is being considered by numerous other states as well.

You can thank the 'presumptively' constitutional irrationality of concealed carry bans on at least one Justice, most likely Justice Kennedy, insisting on it. Remember, it was a 5/4 decision.

*Vermont always had it.

Concern over "the practice of carrying concealed deadly weapons" (presumed to be for the purpose of surprising a victim of robbery, or assassination) was the one common reservation to the constitutional protections sought for the right to bear arms during the 1800's- as is evidenced by most adopted state constitutions.

People were not concerned over the practice of carrying a gun whether it be for the purposes of hunting game, or for self defense, but they just didn't think decent folks would have any reason to hide the fact that they were armed. ( Interesting concept - huh ?)

This is the historical foundation for the eventual settling of the 2A issue as it pertains to open carry across this nation.

Does a ban on concealed carry somehow infringe your ability to carry? In general, no. It may be your "preference" to carry concealed, but the act of concealing the pistol is in no way central to the exercise of the right to bear arms. The problem you run up against, is that in the winter people tend to cover their otherwise openly carried pistols with their coats and jackets. That's the point when you need to make the distinction between covering a weapon with an outer layer of clothing (which should not be illegal), and concealing the fact that you are carrying a weapon so as to present a false sense of being disarmed to the people around you (which, according to your constitution, is not a protected right).

Most concealed carry laws fail to make that distinction, and thus become an infringement on the right to keep and (openly) bear arms. Just my $0.02

Edit:

OC4me said:

Yes, obviously a ban on concealed carry cannot logically be justified. Open carry is only practical during fair weather and is almost totally unsuited for many classes of law-abiding citizens (most notably women).

Click to expand...

BWAhahahahahahahaha... haha... ha. Wow, I needed that. That was funny.

OC4me said:

Open carry is only practical during fair weather and is almost totally unsuited for many classes of law-abiding citizens (most notably women).

Click to expand...

Ummm...care to elaborate a bit, sugar?

OC4me said:

*Vermont always had it.

Click to expand...

Not exactly true. Vermont passed a very strict concealed carry measure and it was removed by the courts. They just never attempted to venture down that path again.

PistolPackingMomma said:

Ummm...care to elaborate a bit, sugar?

Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious that he's referring to the tighter fitting clothes more often worn by women than men?

Of course you can just adjust your wardrobe to suit concealed carry. But I think the fact that effective CC requires this was his point.

Smith45acp said:

Isn't it obvious that he's referring to the tighter fitting clothes more often worn by women than men?

Of course you can just adjust your wardrobe to suit concealed carry. But I think the fact that effective CC requires this was his point.

Click to expand...

I guess I just don't get it. He said OC was "unsuited for many classes of LACs, most notably woman." I find it MUCH easier to open carry than conceal. But I can conceal with my pre-gun wardrobe; it just requires a variety of holsters and a little ingenuity. Here's my thread on it: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?99427-Concealed-Carry-Outfits-for-Women

Brimstone Baritone said:

Does a ban on concealed carry somehow infringe your ability to carry? In general, no. It may be your "preference" to carry concealed, but the act of concealing the pistol is in no way central to the exercise of the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

I prefer to openly carry. It's easier to Concealed Carry. In Washington the weather changes so often that one minute you will need a coat and another you might not need it.

Moving my holster from inside to outside and back is not fun.

So a restriction on how to carry is an infringement.

zekester said:

Thus Section 4 makes “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” null and void...

Click to expand...

I've learned over the years that lawyers make poor semanticians, and and semanticians make poor programmers. I did some programming in college, as a consultant before joining the Air Force, and a bit more while in the Air Force. That experience helped me to be a more precise and concise writer.

Sadly, how many lawyers do you know who are or were programmers? The result is that most legislation sucks.

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

Click to expand...

I thought the Framers put it very well. Apparently, lawyers and judges aren't very good readers, either, as they've so twisted and distorted the very simple and straightforward language of our Second Amendment that it's galling.

...looks pretty clear to me.

Click to expand...

Me too!

Well...clear as mud!! LOL!!

Click to expand...

Aye, to most lawyers and judges, it most certainly is. To most liberals our Constitution sounds like the "muwah WAH wah" of Peanuts fame, so they say, "I can't understand it, so I'll just establish new law from my opinion." :banghead: