Amendment 5 Legal Challenge Files

[deepdiver]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-...cle_d27bace2-e367-5a8d-9a91-b8f48f7ee1f7.html

Here we go again .... Now a few people with deep pockets are going to see if they can find one judge willing to overturn the will of 61% of Missouri voters. :cuss::banghead:

 

[kcgunfan]

Boy, those sound just like the ballot language challenges that came up in July and were denied. We are not making a new right, that part is correct. We are making it super duper extra bright and shiny clear that it's unalienable. In any case, the AG is required to defend the Amendment in his role, so it'll be fun to follow the AG sticking up for gun rights in Missouri...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-...cle_d27bace2-e367-5a8d-9a91-b8f48f7ee1f7.html

Here we go again .... Now a few people with deep pockets are going to see if they can find one judge willing to overturn the will of 61% of Missouri voters. :cuss::banghead:

 

[Redbaron007]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-...cle_d27bace2-e367-5a8d-9a91-b8f48f7ee1f7.html

Here we go again .... Now a few people with deep pockets are going to see if they can find one judge willing to overturn the will of 61% of Missouri voters. :cuss::banghead:

Did the prior rulings pertain to the summary language being vague; and/or the amendment language being vague; and/or the opponents waited to late to have it removed from the ballot?

IIRC...they ruled it was past the time to remove it from the ballot; it was never on the language.

 

[kcgunfan]

It was ruled it was past time, so there was no need to rule on the language. But it was discussed, and the judges basically though they were splitting hairs.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[deepdiver]

Yes, it was ruled to late to challenge. Now if a month or so before the election was too late/too close to the election to challenge the language, wouldn't one think that almost 2 months after more than 60% of Missouri voters said YES to Amendment 5 would be way, way too #@&#% late??

 

[9026543]

No fear, the good AG Koster will fight this lawsuit rather vigorously as instructed in Amendment 5. Doesn't everyone believe that he will?

 

[Redbaron007]

Yes, it was ruled to late to challenge. Now if a month or so before the election was too late/too close to the election to challenge the language, wouldn't one think that almost 2 months after more than 60% of Missouri voters said YES to Amendment 5 would be way, way too #@&#% late??

But this is why they are filing the suit....6 out of 10 Missourian voters are too ignorant to know the difference and therefore the all knowledgeable ones are telling us how stupid we are; we were mislead, provided unreasonable language....subsequently they have to fix our ignorant mistakes! :banghead:

 

[BB62]

Does anyone have a link to the actual filing, or have the ability to send me a pdf of the filing? It would be of great help with the ongoing Oct 25 walk research.

Thank you.

 

[kcgunfan]

Welcome to Missouri CaseNet!

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do

The case information is: 14AC-CC00501 - D. S DOTSON ET AL V JASON KANDER (E-CASE)

 

[BB62]

Welcome to Missouri CaseNet!

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do

The case information is: 14AC-CC00501 - D. S DOTSON ET AL V JASON KANDER (E-CASE)

Thank you for the link, but it appears that one cannot get the actual case filing for the case: https://www.courts.mo.gov/pbw/search.do?execution=e1s1

"This case is in a location that is not accepting Pay By Web payments at this time. For assistance, please contact the court."

I guess I will contact the court. In the meanwhile, if anyone else can offer any help, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Redbaron007]

Thank you for the link, but it appears that one cannot get the actual case filing for the case: https://www.courts.mo.gov/pbw/search.do?execution=e1s1

"This case is in a location that is not accepting Pay By Web payments at this time. For assistance, please contact the court."

I guess I will contact the court. In the meanwhile, if anyone else can offer any help, I would greatly appreciate it.

Casenet may not have it ready for review; other than the docket entries/case header/parties. Casenet is sometimes a lil quirky.

 

[OC for ME]

But this is why they are filing the suit....6 out of 10 Missourian voters are too ignorant to know the difference and therefore the all knowledgeable ones are telling us how stupid we are; we were mislead, provided unreasonable language....subsequently they have to fix our ignorant mistakes! :banghead:

6 out of 10 voters who voted...1 million voted out of ~3.3 million eligible to vote. Not much of a mandate...60% is 60% of those who know and care.

Missouri Amendment 5 (2014)
Result	Votes	Percentage
Yes	602,076	60.97%
No	385,422	39.03%

 

[deepdiver]

Choosing not to exercise your vote is a vote to let others decide. Of those who care enough about the state's governance to make the minimal effort it takes to vote, 60% voted yes on Amendment 5. So yes, indeed a mandate among those who chose not to let others decide for them.

 

[Redbaron007]

6 out of 10 voters who voted...1 million voted out of ~3.3 million eligible to vote. Not much of a mandate...60% is 60% of those who know and care.

Missouri Amendment 5 (2014)
Result	Votes	Percentage
Yes	602,076	60.97%
No	385,422	39.03%

IIRC....the voter turnout for this August primary was higher than anticipated in most area's. I think they predicted 12-15% turnout down here; when it was closer to 22-25%.

According to Dotson, the 602k that voted for it are the majority ignorants (sp) of the voting populous!

 

[OC for ME]

IIRC....the voter turnout for this August primary was higher than anticipated in most area's. I think they predicted 12-15% turnout down here; when it was closer to 22-25%.

According to Dotson, the 602k that voted for it are the majority ignorants (sp) of the voting populous!

Dotson should ponder the meaning of the stone/glass house thing. His words may come back to haunt him in a court of civil law.

 

[Redbaron007]

Dotson should ponder the meaning of the stone/glass house thing. His words may come back to haunt him in a court of civil law.

So true!! Although, I would like to see it bite hard and deep!!

 

[BB62]

Dotson should ponder the meaning of the stone/glass house thing. His words may come back to haunt him in a court of civil law.

Can you be more specific?

 

[OC for ME]

Can you be more specific?

Dotson made a statement regarding the passage of Amendment 5.

http://stlchiefdotsonblog.blogspot.com

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08/06/passage-of-amendment-5-has-st-louis-police-chief-worried/

http://www.examiner.com/article/pol...-will-of-the-voters-make-gun-rights-alienable

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinio...cle_3a3f360e-1cbf-5c97-a350-80632209bf06.html

Chief Dotson is no friend of our inalienable right nor is he a friend of the citizenry exercising their inalienable right to defend themselves as they deem appropriate.

BB62, your efforts on behalf of Missouri citizens will be long remembered by some, if not many, our humble gratitude will not likely be thanks enough. I hope to see you in late October.

 

[BB62]

...I hope to see you in late October.

I hope so too.

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out tomorrow as it's late.

Are you signed up for the walk?

 

[9026543]

Poor little chiefie is pouting and having a hissy fit because the people out side of the city passed Amendment 5. A quote of his from one of the articles below. But he thinks it is just fine for the city to drive what happens in out state MO.

Noting that 71 percent of St. Louis voters rejected the amendment, "Dotson says it’s unfortunate that rural Missouri sometimes gets to drive what happens in the city."