Skip to comments.MO: Constituitonal Amendment to Strengthen Right to Arms on November Ballot
Posted on 05/11/2014 5:00:32 PM PDT by marktwain
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?The current amendment reads as follows:
Section 23. That 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.The proposed amendment is below:
Section 23. 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
[;but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons]. 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 Constitution for all intents and purposes is ignored, why is this going to be any different?
Rhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 22
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
While a constitutional amendment is good, what I see in the future are states creating enabling laws to encourage guns.
This can come in many forms, from sponsoring state rifle competitions for high school students, to creating incentives for gun and ammunition makers to set up shop in the state, to publishing annual guides for recreational shooting as well as hunting and fishing.
None are inherently expensive, but can do much to enhance the perception of the state as gun friendly.
How can a right be unalienable but still subject to restrictions?
Yet RI is pretty poor on gun rights. Which goes to show about how useful putting strong language in a constitution is.
The citizens of MO need to put on their thinking beanies and anticipate how activist judges might twist the somewhat strained wording of the proposed amendment.
It may be easier and cheaper to bring suit using a states constitution than the US Constitution. More likely to be heard by a supreme court too.
State legislators are more likely to abide by the clear words of a state constitution as well. Perhaps because of federal authority.
The states where we have the most infringments tend to not have state protections in their constitutions. There are only six:
They are California, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Maryland, and Iowa.
Illinois is quite problematic:
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Low volume ping list
FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.
First Missouri ping in a while.
I like the spirit of the proposed law, but am a bit uncomfortable with any wording that could be twisted to infringe on our 2cnd Amendment rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.