Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 10/12/2005 10:18:55 AM PDT by freepatriot32
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court won’t consider a challenge to a provision of the state’s concealed gun law. Without comment, the state’s highest court let stand a lower court's ruling that there's no absolute right to bear arms in Missouri.
The case focuses on whether people seeking permits to carry concealed guns must answer questions from county sheriffs about their criminal history or military service. Missouri's concealed-carry law lets sheriffs deny permits for various reasons -- including a discharge from the military "under dishonorable conditions."
The sheriff of St. Charles County filed an appeal after a circuit judge ordered him to grant a permit to a man whose military discharge the sheriff wanted to investigate further. A panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals this year overturned the order, ruling that the applicant had to answer the sheriff's questions fully.
The decision by the state Supreme Court essentially upholds the appeals court's decision.
P s boycott the state of Missouri
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
That pesky 2nd ammendment again. The BOR was written for lawyers to interpret not those commoners! Does this stop it dead or can it be brought to SCOTUS?
“[t]hat 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.”
Pretty straightforward.
Hopefully, this will help calm you down: At least the MSC didn't actually issue a ruling that would have created a terrible precedent at the MSC level, and that would have been binding Missouri-wide. Some of the Jusices may have voted against hearing the case precisely for this reason.
"Does this stop it dead or can it be brought to SCOTUS?"
It could be brought to the SCOTUS, but would not be heard by them. It's another bad case to bring, if testing the right of states to prohibit firearms ownership by felons, the mentally ill, and even dishonorably discharged former military personnel is not the issue.
It's a poor 2nd Amendment case. Instead, a case where a local Sheriff has denied a permit to someone for reasons other than these should be brought.
Only a tiny percentage of Americans believe that felons and mentally ill persons should be armed. It's a bad case.
That seems patently unfair as it could be for something relatively minor that in the civilian world would be a misdemeanor, and thus not a disqualifying factor. Say like losing your cool and slapping-striking some jackass Major, or flipping off a Lt General. (hi cousin Tommy, ya idiot)
Note, I'm not EXCUSING bad behavior but I would think the REASON for the DD would-should be the determining factor; insubordination no, felony yes.
The Supreme Court's action deals only with Missouri's concealed-carry law, not the right to possess a firearm in one's home to protect life and property. Having said that, don't be suprised if the state legislature and governor take care of this situation by removing the broad discretion now granted sheriffs. Very conservative state legislature and governor, but liberal supreme court justices appointed by the late Mel Carnahan.
Should 14-year-olds be allowed? Felons? The mentally ill? Fugitives from justice? Those with a valid restraining order againt them?
Where does the second amendment stand on it?
"Men In BLACK"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It hasnt been that straightforward since the 14th amendment was ratified.States cannot outlaw homosexual sodomy anymore becasue the supreme court said that was unconstitutional and thier rulings overides everything(I dont agree that that should bethe case btw but thats the law of the land for the time being).Missouri cannot outlaw concealed carry because the united states constitutions 2cd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the us constitution trumps anything a state constitution says.
You don't believe that the citizens of a state should be allowed to reasonably decide who gets to post government supremacist claptrap to the internet legally?
Should 14-year-olds be allowed? Felons? The mentally ill? Fugitives from justice? Those with a valid restraining order againt them? The First Amendment notwithstanding, naturally.
If you want this right in the state either have the legislature pass a rock solid bill or amend the Constitution of the state of Missouri
"Missouri is a "shall issue" state, meaning that a county or city sheriff must issue a permit to carry a concealable firearm if the applicant:
-- Has not been discharged under dishonorable conditions from the United States armed forces;"
I would guess that if the dishonorable discharge was due to insubordination, the sheriff may issue a permit, given the way it's worded. But it does not say the sheriff cannot issue a permit.
In the above case, the applicant refused to answer questions about his discharge. The sheriff, imo, acted properly.
The constitution was amended to guarantee certain rights to all citizens of the United States. Among those amendments was number 2.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't, since the above case does not involve any federal law, only state law. The state constitution prevails, and the law under it says that the sheriff does not have to issue a permit.
True, but the second amendment has not yet been incorporated like the other amendments. It still only applies to the federal government (ie., Congress shall not infringe ...).
When it comes to your RKBA, state laws are guided solely by state constitutions.
Thanks for the clarification it is appreciated.
So do you think that texas can pass a state constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual sodomy in light of the united states supreme jokes ruling a couple of years ago declaring it unconstitutional?
He is always on the side of statism. Don't even bother.
Seems to me on casual reading of the statute that OPEN carry is perfectly legal in Missouri. Or am I misreading things?
The U.S. Constitution was amended to protect certain rights of all citizens of the United States from being infringed by the newly formed federal government.
The states had their own constitutions to protect certain rights from infringement by the state.
Um no. Please see incorporation of Bill of Rights under the 14th Amendment. Under original intent, the Amendment (as with all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights) only applies to the citizens of the respective states and their relations to the national government. The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states.
ping
Being a big believer in federalism and states rights, yes, I think Texas should have been allowed to maintain their law against certain behaviors.
But, ever since the ratification of 14th amendment, the USSC has used the due process clause to "incorporate" certain fundamental rights and make them applicable to the states. One of these fundamental rights was the right "to engage in private conduct in the exercise of their liberty", and that Texas had demonstrated no legitimate state interest in regulating that behavior.
LOL, one of the only ones on the entire thread defending the ideal of federalism is accused of statism. That's rich. For the record under the orignal intent of the Constitution, he is correct. Mind you, neither Republicans or Democrats actually care for original intent as noted by numerous posts on multiple chat boards (they seem more concerned with 'their team' being in control) but the Framers were clear.
If the citizens of the state of Missouri want to address the issue, they should petition their legislature
Most of the incorporation did occur in the 20th century. And for this reason, and her stance against it, unfortunately Janice Rogers Brown will probably never sit on the Supreme Court.
Statism? Wrong word. Try federalism.
Ok. What if a state legalizes drugs? Or euthenasia? What is your stance in that case?
I believe Missouri is an open carry state....unless local municipalities ban the open carry of firearms. New Mexico for example, makes preemption or exemption laws unconstitutional but many states do not. Missouri allows exemption laws.
Where do y'all stand on people with a criminal record or a dishonorable discharge being given a concealed carry permit?
basically, if you can legally own a gun, you should be able to take it anywhere. i thought that a felony, mental illness, dishonourable discharge, and domestic violence crimes already stopped you from getting a gun.
Do people with criminal records or dishonorable discharges have 1st Amendment rights? If so, they should have 2nd Amendment rights as well. Anything else is ripe for abuse.
I don't think anyone who can't be trusted with a gun should be let out of prison, because it's not like once they get out, they will be unable to become armed. Furthermore, I detest the privacy violations and registration presently necessary in having to prove that I'm not a criminal when I buy a gun.
If the person is considered safe enough to allow to go free he sould be allowed to defend himself with a weapon-- concealed or not. If we cant't trust him with a weapon then we can't trust him in society and he should be locked up until we can.
While some might think such an action might require more prison space, I believe that releasing many who are in for "paper felonies" would free-up more than enough space.
That should be clear enough. If a state passes a law on assisted suicide (Oregon) or medical marijuana(California) that is their decision. I may not agree with it or even work to have those laws overturned in the state legislature but I have redress in the federal judiciary or the federal legislature
The issue is not keeping or bearing arms but Concealed Carry. There is not a single reference from any founder that says this type of carry is protected. All case law is state case law (no federal court cases)
I would love to see someone come up with quotes from the founders on the issue of concealed carry. I spent a lot of time looking and could not find anything anywhere. There is no record of concealed carry discussions associated with the debates in the Constitutional convention, no record of debate in the discussions of the second amendnment, and no federal legislation on the issue from the period.
There is a long legislative and state constitutional law history of concealed carry. It all comes down to individual state constitutions and state law.
That said, no state has the constitutional right to ban the ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns.
"Missouri cannot outlaw concealed carry because the united states constitutions 2cd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the us constitution trumps anything a state constitution says."
I would agree if it said "concealed" anywhere or that there was a history of intent that could be produced. As neither is the case, one has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but the state can legislate on carry.
I looked for the word "incorporation" but I didn't find it.
Exactly. However, it's the incorporation 'theory' that has been used since around 1898-99 to bring the states under the limitations if you will of the Bill of Rights. Most of them from my understanding however were 'incorporated' in the 1920s-1930s
"Um no. Please see incorporation of Bill of Rights under the 14th Amendment. Under original intent, the Amendment (as with all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights) only applies to the citizens of the respective states and their relations to the national government. The Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states."
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Any amendment to the Constitution overrules all previous case law and all previous intent with the new intent of the drafters of the amendment.
The intent of the 14th was to incorporate the Bill of Rights, all of it, to the states. It added a new test for state law. State law not only needed to pass state constitution muster, but also a US Bill of Rights muster.
Just because courts have ignored this intent and only incorporated what they desired at any given monent does not change the intent and just because the courts pervert the original intent of the individual rights found in the Bill of Rights does not change that intent.
Do not confuse judicial caprice with original intent.
Absent any conflicting, constitutional federal law (thereby triggering the Supremacy Clause), I'm in favor of that.
If the states wish to take back a power ceded to the federal government (or a power they do not wish the federal government to have), a constitutional amendment must be ratified. This was done with alcohol, and would need to be done with abortion, or drugs, or school prayer, or sodomy, or a myriad of issues.
Either that, or repeal the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
Really. You know that would be a suprise considering that no major laws were contested on this until the late 1890s (and then it was the 5th, thank goodness Kelo began overturning that one). The intent of the 14th Amendment was not to 'incorporate' the Bill of Rights. Near was the case in 1931 that finally incorporated the First Amendment. I also take it you would have problems with Janice Rogers Brown as she does not believe this to be the case either
" Where do y'all stand on people with a criminal record or a dishonorable discharge being given a concealed carry permit?"
All depends on the criminal record.
Dishonoralbe discharge?
Not a chance. If the maggot can't do his term of service without getting a DD, then his butt has no right owning a firearm. He's a maggot of the first order.
Only if that law does not conflict with federal law.
The issue in Oregon was not assisted suicide per se, but using federally regulated drugs in doing so. Similarly, the federal government makes no exception for "medical" marijuana.
Now, the USSC has not overturned those state laws. In other words, the state may not arrest you, but the federal government can. I believe the federal government will ask the USSC to rectify this situation.
So it's unconstitutional in Illinois for the City of Chicago, the Village of Morton Grove (a landmark case, btw), the City of Wilmette, etc. to ban hanguns?
Or is it your opinion that it should be unconstitutional? It's not clear to me what you're saying here.
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.