Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MO: Court Rules for RKBA on Ballot August 6th
Gun Watch ^ | 7 July, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

Posted on 07/08/2014 5:59:18 AM PDT by marktwain

On 1 July, 2014, Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the lawsuit against placing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms on the August 6th primary ballot.

Other states that have placed similar measures before the public have seen overwhelming support for them, often with majorities over 74%.   Wisconsin passed such a measure in 1998 with 74% of the vote.   Kansas passed their amendment with 88% of the vote in 2010.  Louisiana did the same with 74% of the vote in 2012.    Oklahoma has a similar measure on the ballot for this November.   It seems likely that Democrat Governor Nixon chose to put the measure on the August 6th ballot in an attempt to reduce second amendment supporter turnout in the general election in November.

Opponents of the measure then filed a the lawsuit that was dismissed by Judge Beetem, contending that the wording was insufficient and unfair.   Readers may judge for themselves.    Here is the wording on the ballot:

Official Ballot Title:

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?
State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to expand the right to keep and bear arms to include ammunition and related accessories for such arms. This amendment also removes the language that states the right to keep and bear arms does not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. This amendment does not prevent the legislature from limiting the rights of certain felons and certain individuals adjudicated as having a mental disorder.
A "no"; [sic] vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding arms, ammunition, and accessories for such arms.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes. 
Here is the actual constitutional amendment:
 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 opponents of the measure may choose to appeal the court's decision.   If they do,  might such a delay push the measure to the November ballot?

Governor Nixon is also contemplating whether to sign a popular gun reform bill.   He has to make his decision by July 18th or 19th.   A veto could energize second amendment supporters to go to the polls to support the constitutional amendment.

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

TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guncontrol; mo
The anti-second amendment people have decided to appeal the decision.
1 posted on 07/08/2014 5:59:18 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

There is a very important qualifier right at the end of the amendment:

“...or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

This means a *judge* has to determine mental infirmity, not a bureaucrat, or some automatic provision in a bill, nor a psychiatrist or psychologist or counselor.

But I wonder if this might set up contention with the federal law that lets non-judges do this, like VA bureaucrats, not even doctors, deciding that hundreds of thousands of veterans should be denied their rights?

2 posted on 07/08/2014 7:54:43 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I know judge Beetem personally. A good standup guy. Good Conservative.

3 posted on 07/11/2014 1:59:26 PM PDT by painter ( Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson