(MO) Lawsuit filed against LTC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gray Peterson

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,548
Location
Lynnwood, Washington
Group prepares lawsuit challenging conceal and carry law

10:39 PM CDT on Friday, October 3, 2003 Reporter: Mike O'Connell, News 4 (KMOV) --

The future of concealed guns in Missouri could come down to the interpretation of 10 words. Those 10 words were inserted into the Missouri constitution 128 years ago. The fight over concealed guns in Missouri went from defeat at the ballot box is 1999 to victory in the legislature's veto session in September, but now the battle may be headed to the Missouri Supreme Court. "I think the people who are challenging this on the merits have a very good case. And, in fact, if you had to ask me, I think the Supreme Court of Missouri will through the law out," News 4 has learned a small group of handgun control advocates is preparing a constitutional challenge to the conceal and carry law.

The legal case is based on a portion of the Missouri constitution adopted in 1875 that deals with the right to keep arms. In Article 1, Bill of Rights Section 23, the constitution reads, "...the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person 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." Attorney Bevis Schock isn't a party to the potential lawsuit, but he specializes in constitutional cases. "So, it comes down to what does the word justify mean?" Schock said.

John Wolf of the Gateway Civil Liberties Alliance has been working to legalize concealed guns in Missouri since 1994. He said that he sees no ban in the constitution. He said in his mind, this is not something for the courts to decide. "It has been decided legislatively, they may not like the way it went down, they may not like the fact that the governor had his veto overridden, but that's the breaks," Wolf said. But concealed gun opponent Terry Barber is hopeful about a legal challenge. "I would applaud any effort to stop the bill, any legal effort to stop the bill would be excellent," Barber said. Schock, a Libertarian, would like to see concealed guns legalized, but he's not hopeful the law will be upheld. "I'm basing that on the language and, quite honestly, on the makeup of the court.

There are four left wing Democrats and three right wing Republicans," he said. A small group of handgun control advocates is secretly preparing this lawsuit. It likely would be filed in Cole County Circuit Court in Jefferson City the day the law goes into effect. It would probably then go from that court to the Missouri Supreme Court. The law takes effect on October 11, which is a Saturday. Monday, October 13, is Columbus Day -- a holiday. The lawsuit most likely would be filed on Tuesday, October 14.


:barf: :barf:

I am beyond livid. And they could win too!!! >.<
 
If this is the best they can do, I'm not too worried. The relevant phrase in the MO Constitution is:

but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

There's a big difference between "justify" and "permit". The phrase means only that the document itself does not justify - not that justification isn't possible.
 
Seems pretty clear, but who knows what judges with agendas will do. :barf:
 
One take...

Does not in itself justify but...
Allows subsequent law to do so.
Does not deny.

Subsequent law has just been enacted.

Looks clean to this amateur.

Sam
 
Boy, these @#$% liberal wannabe dictators sure go kicking and screaming when they lose! :cuss: :banghead:

I'm not an attorney; but, I can read. Sounds like a pretty week case to me.

Question: Was the Bill of Rights passed to record rights grantted by the government to the citizens? or was it to document rights reserved by the Citizens as they granted limited power to government? I believe the latter. :D

Don't get me wrong, though. I think ANY challenge to the new law should be taken very serriously and fought vigorously. Missouri has fought too hard and come too far to get lax about this issue now.

This and other challenges WILL COME. They must each and every one be beaten back and ground down under heel.

It was perhaps, most eloquently phrased centuries ago,
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
:fire:
 
Similar statements appear in other state constitutions, including Arizona where both Sam and I live. As most know, Arizona has a very successful and recently expanded CCW law.

The writers of these constitutions didn't say "prohibit" the carrying of concealed weapons, not did they "prohibit" the legislature from passing any laws on the subject. At the time various state and/or local statutes forbid the carrying of concealed weapons, and the constitutional framers didn't want to overturn those laws. They simply said their "right to keep and bear arms" amendment wouldn't "justify" or authorize carrying concealed weapons - although most did say that people had a right to possess arms for the defense of the state, and of themselves.

So the anti-gun crowd is going to have to convince the courts that "justify" means "prohibit." Now go look up the word in your dictionary.
 
In Article 1, Bill of Rights Section 23, the constitution reads, "...the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person 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."

If they can twist the meaning of the Second Ammendment, is anyone really surprised they'll do the same to this?

So they want to define "justify".

Are they confused about "shall not be questioned"?
 
Bevis is a casual friend of mine. He's a good guy but should have kept his mouth shut. "Specializes in constitutional cases"? They made that up.

I would be STUNNED if this went anywhere. All the MO Constitution statement means is you cannot use the 2nd Am. in MO as an affirmative defense if you're caught carrying concealed WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. Under the Joan Bray "logic," under the MO Constitution, NO ONE in MO can legally carry concealed, not cops, not military, not judges, not prosecutors, not the FBI, not anyone.

IMO statists like Joan Bray do things like this so they can say to their supporters "Look, I never quit fighting this for you."

On the floor, Gibbons came within an eyelash of calling her a liar on the whole "blood in the streets" thing, pointing out that he HAD finally done what we'd asked, and contacted the authorities in dozens of other states to see what their experience with CCW had been.

JR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top