Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: The court says Amendment 5 means what it says

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726

    The court says Amendment 5 means what it says

    St. Louis judge tosses out gun case, citing newly-enacted Amendment 5.


    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...bf4af09a0.html

    http://www.stltoday.com/amendment-ca...6fb980bff.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Tossing the charge certainly seems the proper thing to do, given the Amendment. The part that troubles me here, is the statement from the sponsor (Nieves?) that said this was not their intention.

    First, it's not like they are reading the amendment in a tortured fashion, non-violent felons is there in plan text. Presumably, the sponsor would have known about it. That's what a sponsor is for after all. So, I have to wonder if there is going ot be another amendment proposed to change it to just felon, or if this is the anonymous sponsor trying to get some CYA.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    . The part that troubles me here, is the statement from the sponsor (Nieves?) that said this was not their intention.
    Seems to me (Nieves?) wasn't doing his job very well then.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Tossing the charge certainly seems the proper thing to do, given the Amendment...
    Without a doubt.


    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    ...The part that troubles me here, is the statement from the sponsor (Nieves?) that said this was not their intention...
    Let's read the entirety of what the reporter says, and the only part that actually quotes (no doubt with 100% accuracy and in context), Sen. Schaefer: "The sponsor of the measure that put Amendment 5 on the ballot, Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, said Friday that he had not heard about Dierkerís order. But he insisted that allowing felons to automatically have possession of firearms was not 'the intent or legal effect of Amendment 5'". (my emphasis added)

    I have no doubt that the reporter accurately conveyed the specifics and the totality of the ruling, and then accurately quoted the Senator, because reporters are soooo interested in accuracy and balance when guns are part of the subject matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    ...First, it's not like they are reading the amendment in a tortured fashion, non-violent felons is there in plan text. Presumably, the sponsor would have known about it. That's what a sponsor is for after all...
    Agreed x4.


    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    ...So, I have to wonder if there is going ot be another amendment proposed to change it to just felon, or if this is the anonymous sponsor trying to get some CYA.
    No, and see above.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I'm referring to the unnamed sponsor mentioned in the second paragraph. It may be the same as Schaefer, but again may not be.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I'm referring to the unnamed sponsor mentioned in the second paragraph. It may be the same as Schaefer, but again may not be.
    Thank you - I missed that, but my comments would apply equally to that person, if it isn't Schaeffer - which I doubt.
    Last edited by BB62; 02-28-2015 at 01:07 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    at least it is a step in the direction of proper constitutional law.

    and last I checked, the federal based constitution/ bill of rights says nothing about felons.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    13
    Although the OP provided links I found this one easier to read. It's a good read on how the decision to uphold Amendment 5 and it's effect on Missouri's statute concerning a (non-violent) felon possessing a firearm in their home or vehicle. https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sonmotion.html
    Last edited by chiggerbyt; 02-28-2015 at 05:33 PM. Reason: added: (non-violent)

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    at least it is a step in the direction of proper constitutional law.

    and last I checked, the federal based constitution/ bill of rights says nothing about felons.
    U.S. Constitution
    Article. I. - The Legislative Branch - Section 8 - Powers of Congress - To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    Article III. - The Judicial Branch - Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials - The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
    Murder, Rape, Manslaughter, Robbery, Sodomy, Larceny, Arson, Mayhem and Burglary are the only common law crimes under the U.S. Constitution, true felonies under the constitution. All other felonies are statutory (man made) and are not true felonies.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    THat actually is one of the question I had on the amendment. I don't know of any definition of violent felony in the state statutes. It seems to be common sense, but the laws typically don't work that way. It'll be curious to see where it goes from here.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    THat actually is one of the question I had on the amendment. I don't know of any definition of violent felony in the state statutes. It seems to be common sense, but the laws typically don't work that way. It'll be curious to see where it goes from here.
    Missouri criminal laws include provisions for violent crimes such as assault and battery, robbery, sexual assault, and the various types of homicide (from involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder). Also, Missouri law makes it a crime to commit "domestic assault," that is, to knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a member of your family or household.

    565.070. 1. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:
    (1) The person attempts to cause or recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
    (2) With criminal negligence the person causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon; or
    (3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or
    (4) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; or
    (5) The person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative; or
    (6) The person knowingly causes physical contact with an incapacitated person, as defined in section 475.010, which a reasonable person, who is not incapacitated, would consider offensive or provocative.
    2. Except as provided in subsections 3 and 4 of this section, assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
    3. A person who violates the provisions of subdivision (3) or (5) of subsection 1 of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor.
    4. A person who has pled guilty to or been found guilty of the crime of assault in the third degree more than two times against any family or household member as defined in section 455.010 is guilty of a class D felony for the third or any subsequent commission of the crime of assault in the third degree when a class A misdemeanor. The offenses described in this subsection may be against the same family or household member or against different family or household members.
    Those common law crimes I listed above are considered violent.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    And that list does not include things like car jacking or murder. So, either those are not violent felony crimes, or that is not where the list is. I'm saying that as far as I know, there is no list, which certainly creates ambiguity in the application of the new amendment. If you know of one, you're better at googling than I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Missouri criminal laws include provisions for violent crimes such as assault and battery, robbery, sexual assault, and the various types of homicide (from involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder). Also, Missouri law makes it a crime to commit "domestic assault," that is, to knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical injury to a member of your family or household.



    Those common law crimes I listed above are considered violent.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    I did not say that I was providing an exalted list; I used the term "such as." Also, I said "Those common law crimes I listed above are considered violent." The list above included murder.
    MRS 1.090. Words and phrases shall be taken in their plain or ordinary and usual sense, but technical words and phrases having a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be understood according to their technical import.
    In other words, if a word is not defined in the statutes then the ordinary definition of the word applies. And without searching I am sure the courts have defined the term.

    So, since you like to work from lists, go find me an exalted list of your inalienable rights. I would love to see it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    14
    If he can be trusted to walk the streets as a free man, he should be trusted with a firearm. If not the latter then why the former?

  15. #15
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    The court says Amendment 5 means what it says

    Deleted - not germane to topic
    Last edited by lockman; 03-02-2015 at 08:15 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Art I, Sec 23, last line.
    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.
    Seems like the people and the Legislature have it right. There are many reasons it seems that Robinson should be in jail, where he cannot exercise his 2A. If "we" let him out, and he is not a "violent" person () the he gets to possess a gun. Dotson et al should have gotten a jury to convict him as a violent felon then we are good under ArtI, Sec 23...no?
    "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

Posting Permissions

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