• 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.

The court says Amendment 5 means what it says

kcgunfan

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

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Tossing the charge certainly seems the proper thing to do, given the Amendment...
Without a doubt.


...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 Dierker’s 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. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


...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.


...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.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I'm referring to the unnamed sponsor mentioned in the second paragraph. It may be the same as Schaefer, but again may not be.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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:

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
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.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
 

kcgunfan

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

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
 

kcgunfan

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

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.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
 

sota

New member
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
14
Location
NJ
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?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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 :)rolleyes:) 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?
 
Top