Skip to comments.MO: Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Will be on August 5 Ballot
Posted on 07/21/2014 8:19:51 PM PDT by marktwain
Missouri will have a strengthened Right to Keep and Bear Arms provision on the August 5th ballot. Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld rulings against foes of the amendment , who tried to keep it off the ballot.
The constitutional amendment was passed by overwhelming margins in the legislature, assuming that it would be on the November Ballot. Governor Nixon (D) decided to put the measure on the August primary ballot instead. A few days ago, Governor Nixon vetoed a popular gun law reform that was passed with veto proof margins in the house, and potentially veto proof margins in the Senate.
A group of Missourians recently filed a lawsuit in Jefferson City, attempting to remove Amendment 5 from the August ballot.
"They were saying that the word inalienable is not understandable and too vague. And the judge overruled that. And then it went to the Missouri Supreme Court," Wampler said.
On Friday, the Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, giving Amendment 5 a straight shot to the ballot.
Even the lawmakers who voted to place the questions on the ballot disagree on what they actually say or do. About the only thing thats certain is that the questions are almost certain to drag the state into costly future court battles.The wording on the ballot will read:
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article591383.html#storylink=cpy
Official Ballot Title:The current amendment reads as follows:
- 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?
Fair Ballot Language:
- State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposals passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.
- 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.
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 questionedAt least the editorial board at the Kansas City Star is consistent. They also oppose Amendment 9, which adds the same protections to electronic communications and data that exists for "homes, papers, and effects".
[;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.
Through every step of this process, our summary language proved to be fair, said Dempsey. As a Legislature, we value Second Amendment rights, and we want to protect those rights from any future infringements. We carefully crafted the language to give voters the final say in how they want to protect their families.Other states that have placed strengthened right to keep and bear arms 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 5th ballot in an attempt to reduce second amendment supporter turnout in the general election in November.
After it’s passed, a liberal court will invalidate it.
How is it that we are given to vote on what the Constitution already guarantees without infringement?
Sad the 2ndA is up for a vote
The liberal elites do not consider the Constitution to be "settled law."
If you read the amendment, you see that it takes out the power of the legislature to regulate concealed carry, it includes ammunition and accessories as protected; and it clarifies that the right is unalienable and that the court must use a “strict scrutiny” standard.
These are improvements.
It is added protection. The courts can look the Bill of Rights in the face and ignore them as we have found out. It hems the government in even more.
The Kansas State government would give an additional protection beyond what the federal constitution does.
“The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that you won’t need it until they come to take it away” Thomas Jefferson
How do you vote on a God-given right? How can others choose if you get to keep your right?
If it is Unalienable it is incapable of being sold or transferred while if it is Inalienable it is not subject to being sold or transferred.
The status of whether or not something or someone is "subject" to something is changeable, the statement that it is not possible to do so is rock solid.
“How do you vote on a God-given right? How can others choose if you get to keep your right?”
You vote on whether or not your government recognizes and officially protects that right. Just as people did when they voted to adopt the Constitution.
You are voting that the social contract recognizes and includes your rights.
We should contact those running for office this year nationwide and ask them if they would support this type of bill being passed in their states.
Let me see if I got this right:
“They were saying that the word inalienable is not understandable and too vague. [snip]”
If the the word inalienable is not understandable, how could they (libtards) know it is “too vague”? See my .sig, libtards!
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.