Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Looks like Feb 25th is Missouri Supreme Court Hearing on Amendment 5.

  1. #1
    Regular Member dkangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wildwood, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    95

    Looks like Feb 25th is Missouri Supreme Court Hearing on Amendment 5.

    FYI Court case to be heard on Feb 25,

    http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.n...7?OpenDocument


    Frankly I don't think fascist Dotson has a chance in hell of winning.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Sure did get in front of the court in a hurry. I'll wager that I could not receive the same "accelerated" scheduling.
    "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

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    what's the case ABOUT?

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Essentially, you have a STLPD Chief not happy that We The People of Missouri changed the RKBA provision of our state constitution to make any alleged "infringements" to be viewed under "strict Scrutiny." Also, the "shall not justify the concealing of arms" clause was removed. Simply put, constitutional carry is much closer for the Show Me State. He is another one of those top cops who is for the 2a while he is also not for the 2A.

    Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories--exception--rights to be unalienable.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, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.
    Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, 17.
    (Amended August 5, 2014)
    (2004) Section does not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting statutes allowing or disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons; the Concealed-Carry Act is therefore constitutional. Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.banc).
    CC will not be made permitless anytime in the remotely foreseeable future.
    "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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    They are saying the ballot language was deficient, so the constitution change is invalid. They tried the same tactic with the same reasoning to keep it off the ballot and failed to persuade anyone on the court.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Just four days after hearing arguments in the case, a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court ruled Friday that its too late to change the ballot language for Amendment 5, which lawmakers approved two months ago.

    http://www.newstribune.com/news/2014...e-amendment-5/
    Dotson and his cronies are very anti-gun, anti-citizen, and anti-liberty.
    "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 kcgunfan View Post
    They are saying the ballot language was deficient, so the constitution change is invalid. They tried the same tactic with the same reasoning to keep it off the ballot and failed to persuade anyone on the court.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    IIRC, the court didn't rule on the language, but ruled they couldn't change it because the statutory language on the the time constraints for being placed on the ballot.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Dotson and his cronies are very anti-gun, anti-citizen, and anti-liberty.
    You're being way to nice in describing them!
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lees Summit
    Posts
    183

    Fate of Amendment 5 (gun rights) in hands of MO Supreme Court

    Let's make sure the court knows we take the vote of the People seriously. Mark your calendar and plan to attend the oral arguments before the Missouri Supreme Court in Jefferson City on February 25th.


    MOSC

    Last August an overwhelming majority of voters ratified Amendment 5, a significant strengthening to the Missouri Constitution's declaration of our right to keep and bear arms.

    Now, a lawsuit brought by St. Louis City's anti-gun Chief of Police, Sam Dotson, could result in the Missouri Supreme Court nullifying the vote of the People. Dotson has challenged the Summary Statement -- the 50 word explanation that appeared on the ballot.

    Dotson claims that the wording was misleading, so the voters didn't know what they were voting for. He wants the court to throw out the election results. The General Assembly proposed the amendment and supplied the Summary Statement. The law limits them to 50 words, so it's typically not possible to cover every detail about an amendment. That 50 word or less Summary Statement was subject to legislative debate by both supporters and opponents of the amendment, and to my knowledge no one had issue with it at the time.

    This effort by Chief Dotson is his last opportunity to kill Amendment 5 altogether, and we need to make sure the Court knows the People won't take obliterating their vote lightly!

    Please help to fill the Courtroom next Wednesday, February 25th! See the sidebar for details.


    The Amendment (SJR 36)

    (Note: Deleted language is in brackets, [thus], and new language is in bold.)

    Article I 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, shall not be questioned[; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons]. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.



    The Summary Statement
    (Appeared on the Ballot)

    "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?"



    Fair Ballot Language
    (Also provided to the voters)

    : A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to expand the right to keep and bear arms to include ammunition and related accessories for such arms. This amendment also removes the language that states the right to keep and bear arms does not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. This amendment does not prevent the legislature from limiting the rights of certain felons and certain individuals adjudicated as having a mental disorder.

    A "no" vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding arms, ammunition, and accessories for such arms. If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    I've read their pleadings and the AG, including the other supporters.........

    IMHO, if the SC rules in favor of the Dotson, the can of worms that it opens is unbelievable. For every amendment ballot language the opposing side doesn't like, they will got to court to have it thrown out because of 'irregularities'. By reading the defendants pleading, it looks like Dotson is stretching under the statutes to get it reversed.

    I have it tentatively on my calendar for next Wed. Hope to make it.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Send a note to Chief Dotson as well. Call him out on his anti-liberty and anti-citizen position. He is another liberal top cop, nothing more, nothing less.

    I suspect that he has little confidence in his efforts to nullify the vote, thus his focus on criminal coddling muni judges letting thugs pinched with a gun walk in the STL area.
    "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

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    I await the court hearing and decision with cautious optimism.

  13. #13
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    I have to question how that chief thanks anything in that ballot question was misleading. That seems to be exceedingly straight forward. SHOULD be an easy decision for the SC.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Ambiguity is the friend of LE and prosecutors. Clear and simple language where laws are concerned do not provide ambiguity and as such no cover for anti-liberty/anti-citizen cops...such as Chief Dotson. Chief Dotson is a liberal where firearms and civilian ownership/bearing is concerned. St Louis is infested with these type of folks, especially in positions of power.
    "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

  15. #15
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    I have to question how that chief thanks anything in that ballot question was misleading. That seems to be exceedingly straight forward. SHOULD be an easy decision for the SC.
    It's the Ballot summary he had questions with....it was misleading....according to him.

    It seems to me that it was only misleading to the 39% who voted against it.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    I read it, and the exact wording it would change it to was available online, it seemed very straight forward to me. but i'm not a top cop liberal so what do I know

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Did anyone attend this? As usual, the link to listen to the oral arguments wasn't working ...

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  18. #18
    Regular Member dkangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wildwood, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Did anyone attend this? As usual, the link to listen to the oral arguments wasn't working ...

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


    There is a link to the audio now on the following website:

    http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.n...7?OpenDocument

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  20. #20
    Regular Member dkangel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wildwood, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    95
    Just listened to the 32 minute hearing. From what I have heard I don't see the court siding with Dotson. The plaintiffs requested the election results be set aside and a new one called. But even by the plaintiffs own words there would be a constitutional issue with timing. Frankly I don't see the court wanting to go down that road. Also based on the Justices questions it doesn't bode well for dictator Dotson.
    Last edited by dkangel; 02-25-2015 at 03:54 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lees Summit
    Posts
    183
    When will the decision be handed down? Thanks

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegadez View Post
    When will the decision be handed down? Thanks
    My best guess would be any time, if not sooner then later.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by dkangel View Post
    Just listened to the 32 minute hearing. From what I have heard I don't see the court siding with Dotson. The plaintiffs requested the election results be set aside and a new one called. But even by the plaintiffs own words there would be a constitutional issue with timing. Frankly I don't see the court wanting to go down that road. Also based on the Justices questions it doesn't bode well for dictator Dotson.
    Never rely on the questions asked by the justices. I have seen to many judges tell you the world is round as they kick you off the edge.....

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lees Summit
    Posts
    183
    Any time as in today?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Seems like the justices had a beef with the time window to challenge the ballot language, but feel it needs a legislative remedy.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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