Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Since 5 passed, here is a question for you

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Since 5 passed, here is a question for you

    Some debate regarding 5 exist, even some educated types have indicated that it could get interpreted that 5 just made MO a constitutional carry state. Don't strap up and head down to the arch demanding your rights yet, editorial comments are not legal advice but they can pose some interesting questions that is for sure.

    Thought we could start with one.

    If it did then CCW without a permit is legal, would you OC if CCW was a true freedom option?

    Since I tend to do both now, I offer I would continue to do both and would likely maintain some permit for the out of state situations where the permit is recognized etc.

    I am going to get a lawyers opinion on the OC portion of the equation. I also may indeed be a test case for it followed by a huge civil suit as well. It will depend upon the professional opinion.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Check out my post on the amendment 5 topic where I line out out. Too much typing ;-). It's going to be interesting, that's for sure.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    My initial thoughts are pretty close to what KC posted in the other thread.

    My gut reaction is OC will eventually become preemptive. CCW will remain a permit.

    In a nut shell......Since OC is already a freedom (only restricted by muni's), I expect the courts/AG to rule the local muni's will not be able to restrict OCing.

    CCW, since it is already a permit basis, it will remain. I know the language was removed from the Article 23; but it doesn't immediately mean there is Constitutional CCW. This is an area I think it will take some court cases to clarify. Could it end up being Constitutional?...sure.

    But for the immediate future...these are my thoughts. I would rather have Constitutional Carry for both.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219
    After spending most of the day yesterday reading every article I could find on Amendment 5, I was left with the opinion that due to the strong legal wording used in the Amendment 5 Missouri is headed to be a constitutional carry state once all the dust settles. Of course, only time will tell!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    I suspect the 571.107 will be subject to strict scrutiny by cop shops throughout the state. It is their last chance to infringe upon our right. Constitutional carry?
    Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

    Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power. The rights...
    Sure seems like it. But, we need to push our politicians to get the AG to give us his opinion.

    Dotson...anti-liberty. Nothing but another liberal with a badge and a gun. His cop's safety is far more important than the oath he took to defend the constitution. I suspect that he would get along just fine with that NJ reserve cop.
    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I suspect the 571.107 will be subject to strict scrutiny by cop shops throughout the state. It is their last chance to infringe upon our right. Constitutional carry?Sure seems like it. But, we need to push our politicians to get the AG to give us his opinion.

    Dotson...anti-liberty. Nothing but another liberal with a badge and a gun. His cop's safety is far more important than the oath he took to defend the constitution. I suspect that he would get along just fine with that NJ reserve cop.
    Another thought...is a veto override of SB656 meaningless at this point.
    "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

  7. #7
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Another thought...is a veto override of SB656 meaningless at this point.
    At first I thought it would be a good idea; especially since the legal waters are murky on the interpretation....meaning until I think some AG opinions or legal precedence is set for preemptive OC.

    Now, I'm not too sure. Part of me says OC should be preemptive, now! However, the other part says, it may not hurt to have it until the courts reconcile A5 and OC.

    Meaningless, at this stage of the game, I don't think so.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I would like to remind everyone that SB656 contains a lot more legislation than the CCW preemption.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I would like to remind everyone that SB656 contains a lot more legislation than the CCW preemption.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    But if they find SB656 in violation of A5; isn't all of it thrown out?

    Scratch what I said above. The other provision in SB656 are itemized into separate codes.

    Very true KC.......especially the physician verbiage. So SB656 should be passed in the special session.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I would like to remind everyone that SB656 contains a lot more legislation than the CCW preemption.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Sure does...do the politicians know this?

    The focus is on carry, right now due to Amendment 5, and the other provisions may not be important enough to some politicians for them to vote to override the veto. We need to keep the pressure on the politicians to be sure that a override is accomplished.
    "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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I can't see the CCW preemption being tossed out because of A5. While that is not our ultimate objective, it is better than what we have today. It would not make sense for the court to find that clause violating A5, and the rest of the statute to be valid, which would make no logical sense. They would have to find basically that entire section to violate A5.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    But if they find SB656 in violation of A5; isn't all of it thrown out?

    Scratch what I said above. The other provision in SB656 are itemized into separate codes.

    Very true KC.......especially the physician verbiage. So SB656 should be passed in the special session.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    In MO if it is not listed as illegal it is indeed legal.

    If a law is in conflict with the constitution it is invalid.

    It is going to be interesting, but I have a hard time seeing the lawyering path they will have to take to keep restrictions on the books.

    Poor thing about the system though, legislating from the bench happens.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  13. #13
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I can't see the CCW preemption being tossed out because of A5. While that is not our ultimate objective, it is better than what we have today. It would not make sense for the court to find that clause violating A5, and the rest of the statute to be valid, which would make no logical sense. They would have to find basically that entire section to violate A5.
    When I re-reviewed SB656, I saw where all the different areas were listed; so, IIRC, if they found one portion unconstitutional, then it wouldn't affect the other portions.
    Last edited by Redbaron007; 08-08-2014 at 11:35 AM. Reason: spwelling.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    branson mo
    Posts
    6

    Question AG response?

    How long till we hear from the AG on this and when will these provisions go into effect?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    It takes effect when the SoS certifies the election. As far as the AG goes, don't hold your breath...

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Some debate regarding 5 exist, even some educated types have indicated that it could get interpreted that 5 just made MO a constitutional carry state. Don't strap up and head down to the arch demanding your rights yet, editorial comments are not legal advice but they can pose some interesting questions that is for sure.

    Thought we could start with one.

    If it did then CCW without a permit is legal, would you OC if CCW was a true freedom option?

    Since I tend to do both now, I offer I would continue to do both and would likely maintain some permit for the out of state situations where the permit is recognized etc.

    I am going to get a lawyers opinion on the OC portion of the equation. I also may indeed be a test case for it followed by a huge civil suit as well. It will depend upon the professional opinion.

    You and I haven't had a good debate in some time LMTD. The problem is it changes the Constitution and the Constitution only. That means that the current laws will remain on the books as the Amendment would not address that....at least not yet. It's going to take a couple of things, so start hitting up those politicians when the session gets going.

    First, the legislature needs to do away with that dreaded OC denial law that so many municipalities have taken advantage of the past few years. That law was unconstitutional when it was made law in the first place because CCW was illegal. It gave the power to completely deny 2A. Now, with CCW on the books it gives them the power to force you to be taxed to exercise 2A if you want to be shielded with CCW as an option in anti-OC areas.

    Second, we cannot do away with CCW completely. Arizona got it right by allowing the permit to stay in place for those who wish to have it for out of state carry purposes. This is an absolute must, but the doggone restrictions need to go away and businesses being able to post needs to go away or they need to eat the liability for such a posting IF something were to happen due to their open invitation of crime.

    If these changes do not occur just with Amendment 5, it's likely going to take someone being arrested, beating it in court, and/or filing a lawsuit to achieve those changes.

    An amplifier is that we cannot just have a bunch of folks going out to get guns and not having some sort of training or experience with firearms. As an instructor I support training, just not state-mandated training. The catch-22 is that many people will not get the training unless they're forced to. It's like having no experience riding a motorcycle and buying a ZX1400 Ninja thinking "you can handle it", you're a hazard to yourself and those around you. This is the problem area.

    OC just draws odd attention because the public is still convinced that criminals will carry openly, like that's their only option as criminals. Sheesh!
    I cued up WM's LP staff over the weekend and it's a store where I've been a witness for LP multiple times.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219
    "First, the legislature needs to do away with that dreaded OC denial law that so many municipalities have taken advantage of the past few years. That law was unconstitutional when it was made law in the first place because CCW was illegal. It gave the power to completely deny 2A. Now, with CCW on the books it gives them the power to force you to be taxed to exercise 2A if you want to be shielded with CCW as an option in anti-OC areas."

    The legislature and the voters did this with the passage of Amendment 5....

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    My initial thoughts are pretty close to what KC posted in the other thread.

    My gut reaction is OC will eventually become preemptive. CCW will remain a permit.

    In a nut shell......Since OC is already a freedom (only restricted by muni's), I expect the courts/AG to rule the local muni's will not be able to restrict OCing.

    CCW, since it is already a permit basis, it will remain. I know the language was removed from the Article 23; but it doesn't immediately mean there is Constitutional CCW. This is an area I think it will take some court cases to clarify. Could it end up being Constitutional?...sure.

    But for the immediate future...these are my thoughts. I would rather have Constitutional Carry for both.
    Thank you so much for your thoughts and reply! I have really been looking for someone's solid opinion on A5 that has really been following its progress and has thoroughly researched it.

    Again, thank you my brother. I completely agree with much of what you've said here.

Posting Permissions

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