MO: Constituitonal Amendment to Strengthen Right to Arms on November Ballot

Gun Watch ^ | 11 May, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The Missouri Legislature has followed Oklahoma in placing an amendment to strengthen the right to keep and bear arms on the ballot for this November, 2014.  The wording on the ballot will read:

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 Missouri language seems a bit clearer than that of the proposed Oklahoma amendment, though both are following the lead of Kansas and  Louisiana.    It is clear that the legislators are listening to grassroots support of these efforts.   The Louisiana measure passed with 74% of the vote; the Kansas amendment passed with 88% .

I predict that the Missouri amendment will pass with 85% of the vote.

These amendments are so popular that the voters must, using the talking point phrases that have been worn out in the old media, consider it a "commonsense compromise" and a "good first step in the right direction".  It may also be "for the children" and might "save a life".

We will find out in November.   

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

A bit more wordy, as they try to bind future legislators and the courts.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Sounds good but the Constitution already spells it out as clear as can be.

The Constitution for all intents and purposes is ignored, why is this going to be any different?

[KC_Lion]

Ironically Rhode Island has the best one.

Rhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 22

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[DoodleDawg]

...rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny...

How can a right be unalienable but still subject to restrictions?

[RKBA Democrat]

Yet RI is pretty poor on gun rights. Which goes to show about how useful putting strong language in a constitution is.

[Amendment10]

I like the spirit of MO's proposed arms rights amendment. But I don't like the use of the term, "shall be unalienable." This is because the rest of the proposed amendment reasonably gives MO the power to make common-sense laws to restrict guns.

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.

[Balding_Eagle]

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.

[marktwain]

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.

[Just another Joe]

Missouri ping

Low volume ping list

FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.

First Missouri ping in a while.

[greeneyes]

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.