• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
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
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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.
 

Renegadez

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Lees Summit
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.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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. ;)
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
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 :rolleyes:
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Did anyone attend this? As usual, the link to listen to the oral arguments wasn't working ...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

dkangel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
95
Location
Wildwood, Missouri, USA
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:
Top