I'm not disagreeing with you at all. But as a widower with two young kids, my life does not afford me the level of activism I'd like. Never mind the fact that I'm five hours away.
My issue is not what you are doing, not at all. My issue is that you are presenting it as perfectly legal, when that had not been established.
If you need to tell half truths to get people on your side, you should reconsider your strategy.
I must disagree.
The Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other things, that a State may not abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive“any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment also confirms that the right to keep and bear arms is considered fundamental in every state. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: “Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.”
Inalienable and unalienable are synonymous.
Section 23, article I, Constitution of Missouri states:
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 duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The House and Senate asked the citizens of Missouri this question: "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?"
And the voters said yes.
Viz, the individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Missouri Constitution, is now a recognized constitutionally protected right in every part of Missouri. The Missouri Constitution makes clear this right is unalienable and guaranteed. Accordingly, the the Attorney General has indicated that the state will be “obligated to uphold” and cannot “decline to protect” individual rights. In other words, the Attorney General and every prosecutor across the state is required to represent individual Missourians in protecting their rights when it comes to openly carrying their arms.
Why, because the Attorney General and all those prosecutors under him freely held up their right hand and took an oath to support the United States Constitution and Missouri Constitution.
Statutes do not and cannot trump the constitution. And just because a statute is presumed to be constitutional, that does not make it so.
To deprive citizens of the right to possess any firearm would thwart the right that was so thoughtfully granted by our forefathers and the drafters of our Constitution. Typically, legislative restrictions on fundamental constitutional rights must pass the highest level of judicial review-strict scrutiny. Under this standard, a law that seeks to limit the exercise of a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can prove that it is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, and that it is narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal.
For example, the legislators can prohibited a person from carrying pistols, bowie knife, dirk, or other dangerous weapon concealed. But, to square itself with the constitution by limiting that right, open carry would have to be declared constitutional. The state cannot statutorily outlaw a right. So, for a court to hold a statute constitutional, the reasoning goes that the statute cannot operate as a prohibition against carrying weapons, but as a regulation of the manner of carrying weapons. And by converting a right into a privilege, carrying concealed, a constitutional right cannot be destroyed, leaving open carry as a right.
The Attorney General may blow a lot of smoke, but the Attorney General and all his minions know that is all it is, smoke. If the Attorney General does not defend your right then s/he breached their duty. And that is impeachable.
