zekester
Regular Member
I would like you to forward this to the Attorney General and request an opinion from him on this matter.
I would like a written and published opinion on this subject.
I have asked him directly and was told to me under no certain terms, he works for the State...not the people...I thought the people were the State?
Look forward to your reply..
Section 4 of the Missouri State 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."
NOTE: No where is it stated that concealed weapons are an exception.
Section 4 of Missouri State Constitution, clearly states that it is "subject to the Constitution of the United States".
Section 23 of the Missouri State Constitution;
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. (an exception not permissible under Section 4 of the Missouri State Constitution)
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, concealed carry permits are in fact unconstitutional. This is even more evident when 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 (SCOTUS) 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 nullifies the statute that now allows CCW.
The state must also consider.. Murdock v. Pennsylvania - 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../case.html#113
"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"
“The taxes imposed by this ordinance can hardly help but be as severe and telling in their impact on the freedom.”
“A person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." [Footnote 9] Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515”
“But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444; Schneider v. State, supra; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 306; Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S. 418; Jamison v. Texas, supra.”
"It is only in recent years that the freedoms of the First Amendment have been recognized as among the fundamental personal rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states." ( McDonald vs. Chicago has affirmed the same for the Second Amendment).
In closing;
.."A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." ."exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution". Section 4 supersedes the exception of Section 23, especially with the ruling of SCOTUS, McDonald vs. Chicago.
“The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down.”
“A person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution."
Missouri's own Constitution tells us, we, the citizens of Missouri have the constitutional right to "bear arms" in anyway we wish, with no tax...no fee, for a right "guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution".
I would like a written and published opinion on this subject.
I have asked him directly and was told to me under no certain terms, he works for the State...not the people...I thought the people were the State?
Look forward to your reply..
Section 4 of the Missouri State 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."
NOTE: No where is it stated that concealed weapons are an exception.
Section 4 of Missouri State Constitution, clearly states that it is "subject to the Constitution of the United States".
Section 23 of the Missouri State Constitution;
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. (an exception not permissible under Section 4 of the Missouri State Constitution)
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, concealed carry permits are in fact unconstitutional. This is even more evident when 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 (SCOTUS) 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 nullifies the statute that now allows CCW.
The state must also consider.. Murdock v. Pennsylvania - 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../case.html#113
"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."
"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution"
“The taxes imposed by this ordinance can hardly help but be as severe and telling in their impact on the freedom.”
“A person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." [Footnote 9] Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2d 515”
“But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444; Schneider v. State, supra; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 306; Largent v. Texas, 318 U. S. 418; Jamison v. Texas, supra.”
"It is only in recent years that the freedoms of the First Amendment have been recognized as among the fundamental personal rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states." ( McDonald vs. Chicago has affirmed the same for the Second Amendment).
In closing;
.."A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." ."exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution". Section 4 supersedes the exception of Section 23, especially with the ruling of SCOTUS, McDonald vs. Chicago.
“The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down.”
“A person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution."
Missouri's own Constitution tells us, we, the citizens of Missouri have the constitutional right to "bear arms" in anyway we wish, with no tax...no fee, for a right "guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution".
Last edited:
