Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TIME FOR A *MAJOR* FREEP IN MISSOURI! (BANG!!)
vanity | 4/16/2002 | john in missouri

Posted on 04/16/2002 9:55:16 AM PDT by john in missouri

If you believe what both the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions tell us -- that law-abiding citizens have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms in defense of their homes, persons and property -- then come join the GUN RIGHTS RALLY that will be taking place in the CAPITOL ROTUNDA in JEFFERSON CITY on WEDNESDAY STARTING AROUND 9:15 A.M.

To "bear" arms means to "carry" them (check the dictionary). But unfortunately, our RIGHTS are being DAILY DENIED by draconian Missouri laws that PROHIBIT the law-abiding from being armed for self-defense.

("But you can carry openly," someone will say. Yeah? Just try it.)

Governor Bob Holden (also known as "One-Term Bob") spends an estimated $800,000 of YOUR tax dollars every year on his ARMED bodyguard and security detail.* Then he has the GALL to tell law-abiding voters that WE have NO RIGHT to carry a concealed handgun to protect ourselves and our children, and that he will VETO any attempt on the part of our legislators to pass such a law!

We need EVERYBODY OUT to tell the governor -- and our legislators -- what we think.

And if we fail to get a RIGHT-TO-CARRY law passed in Missouri THIS YEAR, then it's time to REPLACE some of our legislators who are failing to stand up and fight for our rights (maybe we should also DUMP One-Term Bob at the earliest opportunity).

Here are some of the rally details:

Date: Wednesday morning (TOMORROW!)
Location: Capitol Rotunda, Jefferson City, MO
Time: Rally officially begins at 930. Meeting runs to 1130. Then GO BY AND SEE your representative and senator! Thank those who are supporting, and let the other ones know how you feel.

BRING YOUR WIVES AND CHILDREN. WE NEED TONS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN THERE TO PROTEST THEIR LACK OF DEFENSE!

There are charter buses leaving from both Kansas City and St. Louis. For more info on these, as well as for rally posters, see the following web sites:

Kansas City area: http://www.wmsa.net
St. Louis area: http://www.sacmo.org

We will NEVER go away.
We DEMAND the Right To Carry for personal defense.
We want other pro gun, pro-freedom legislation passed.
We will not tolerate more gun control measures that threaten our firearms heritage.
Our Rights are NOT what's wrong with Missouri!

* Note: I don't have a hard source on the $800,000 a year. That's just what I've heard reported by one gun rights advocate here in the state. Whatever the exact figure the governor spends on armed guards, it's definitely enormous.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: banglist; concealedcarry; gunrights; missouri
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 04/16/2002 9:55:16 AM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: john in missouri; Dan From Michigan
John, meet Dan. Dan, meet John.

Dan was very active and is very good at organizing efforts for a CCW. He succeeded. Learn from him and utilize him in any way you can.

2 posted on 04/16/2002 10:05:56 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Sounds like Missouri could challenge California for governors that stink!@ Of course, here in Arizona, we just elect ones that get arrested and have to leave office like Fyfe Symington (there was another back in the 80's but I lived in California then)
3 posted on 04/16/2002 10:11:57 AM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Any advice from Dan is appreciated. 8-)
4 posted on 04/16/2002 10:20:52 AM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
See you there, guys.
5 posted on 04/16/2002 10:21:37 AM PDT by mgc1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri; kcpopps; yadayada; alfa6; barker
Kansas City chapter leader ping!

Good call, John in Missouri!

6 posted on 04/16/2002 10:22:16 AM PDT by diotima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
Bump for a CCW in Misery!
7 posted on 04/16/2002 10:41:40 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
missouri blows, i used to live there. indiana rocks, they have ccw, still have property tax, but that may change.
8 posted on 04/16/2002 10:42:20 AM PDT by galt-jw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: galt-jw
missouri blows, i used to live there

Maybe, but we need to remember other Freepers live there, and we need to help 'em get CCW.

I have a vested selfish interest. If we have 49 states with CCW, and the lone holdout is Illinois, it makes it more likely we will succeed.

9 posted on 04/16/2002 10:44:08 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
John in Missouri, you state:

"Then he has the GALL to tell law-abiding voters that WE have NO RIGHT to carry a concealed handgun"

It is not "gall," he is correct:

Section 23, Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights:

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in the defense of his home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in the aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

If you believe in living free under a constitutional republic, which I do by the way, then you know that there is no constitutionally enumerated RIGHT to carry a concealed handgun, stated in the Missouri Bill of Rights.

If you want that RIGHT to carry concealed weapons, then advocate and begin the arduous task of the AMENDING the Missouri constitution.

Enacting laws, creates no RIGHTS. This is very important to understand. Enacting laws, creates no RIGHTS.

You are making two hugh mistakes by not advocating AMENDING the Missouri constitution versus begging the legislature and the governor to enact a law.

Mistake Number 1:

Asking the legislature for permission or more accurately, the privilege to carry a concealed weapon, through legislation, is precisely that: a privilege, not a RIGHT.

If the legislature can grant a privilege, then they surely can take that privilege away. I do not need to remind you, but I will, that when we citizens abdicated our RIGHT to drive, to the status of a "privilege," we all now know the laws and restrictions that have been enacted and is now attached to that "privilege."

This is the same thing that will happen to the privilege, not the right, to carry a concealed weapon.

Mistake Number 2:

The constitution cannot be amemded by the enactment of a law. Since, the Missouri Bill of Rights, clearly states a prohibition to carry concealed arms, then any such law granting that privilege is inherently unconstitutional

If you do not adhere to the principle of constitutional fidelity, then when the legislature wishes to pass a law violating our Bill of Rights, in the future, on another issue, for instance, you will have no moral high ground to stand on, to oppose it.

Those legislators will remind you that you were so willing to look pass the constitution prohibition on the conceal carry issue, why do you not to the same on this next issue.

Here in Missouri we already have the RIGHT to carry a firearm, in full view of course. Let's exert that right.

10 posted on 04/16/2002 10:48:35 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I have a vested selfish interest. If we have 49 states with CCW, and the lone holdout is Illinois, it makes it more likely we will succeed.

Exactly, Laz. This is why I am so glad to see the court action in Ohio. We need to work together.

11 posted on 04/16/2002 10:49:48 AM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Wisely posted but a Constitutional Convention is A) Hard to hold B) Frought with danger.
12 posted on 04/16/2002 10:51:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
"but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Bummer about the specific wording in the constitution!!!!

13 posted on 04/16/2002 10:53:25 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
Tahiti, I just replied to you in the State area. Did you not read that reply?

Those legislators will remind you that you were so willing to look pass the constitution prohibition on the conceal carry issue, why do you not to the same on this next issue.

In a word, nonsense (excuse me for being direct, but I just replied to you a bit more politely concerning this elsewhere). There is NO "constitution prohibition" on concealed carry. The Missouri Constitution merely makes it clear that the said Constitution did not, in and of itself, create a right to CONCEALED carry. It did absolutely NOTHING to prohibit the legislature from passing a law allowing concealed carry by the law-abiding:

"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."

"This shall not justify" simply means that: The Constitution itself doesn't justify wearing concealed weapons. It doesn't justify driving an automobile or camping in the State parks, either, but people are allowed to do so.

In fact, it can well be argued that due to changes in society since 1875 when the Missouri Constitution was passed (at that time open carry was accepted in society, and concealed carry was only for criminals) -- it can well be argued that due to a fundamental shift in society, the subordinate "shall not justify" clause is now inherently in conflict with the main point, which was that CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ARMED FOR SELF-DEFENSE.

Here in Missouri we already have the RIGHT to carry a firearm, in full view of course. Let's exert that right.

Yeah, we have the right to carry a firearm in full view. Except that if it should happen to end up partially covered by a pillow on your front seat, or not be visible to the cop when he walks up to your car, you'll go down for a FELONY, like a 49-year-old grandmother did in December. Now this woman has NO "right" to possess a firearm for self-defense, for the rest of her life, AND SHE WILL GO TO PRISON FOR FIVE YEARS IF THEY EVER CATCH HER WITH ONE AGAIN. Doesn't matter if someone wants to rape or murder her. Tough &#*@, Granny.

Here in Missouri we already have the RIGHT to carry a firearm, in full view of course. Let's exert that right.

Yeah. Tell that to the residents of our cities, where the local legislators have passed laws SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING OPEN CARRY. Yes, I know they're unconstitutional laws. But do you have $100,000 to fight a series of court battles against an unconstitutional law when they're trying to put you in prison simply for exercising your right? I don't.

But the main point of your post has been answered. There is simply nothing in the Constitution to prevent our legislators providing a pathway for law-citizens to carry concealed. And in fact, it can well be argued that the subordinate "shall not justify" clause in the current Missouri Constitution is now contradictory with the main point, and therefore, unconstitutional in and of itself.

14 posted on 04/16/2002 11:07:32 AM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri

15 posted on 04/16/2002 11:08:29 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
Good counter!!!!
16 posted on 04/16/2002 11:08:53 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Bummer about the specific wording in the constitution!!!!

It's unfortunate, but see my reply to tahiti. My opinion is that that particular clause, though not self-contradictory when passed in 1875, has become self-contradictory. Open carry is not a viable option in 2002 for most law-abiding citizens. (How many wives can you imagine openly carrying a firearm in a belt holster?) And requiring open carry as the only legal means of armed self-defense now places an undue (and in many cases nearly impossible) burden on the right that the Constitution established. A requirement for OPEN-ONLY carry therefore infringes on the right established by the Constitution.

In 1875, when the law was passed, almost without exception, women simply did not carry a handgun for self-defense. However, men did, and they were regarded as tools. They did not produce a mass panic whenever a man walked into the general store with a firearm on his hip. Moreover, it was only criminals who carried concealed -- an honest man had nothing to hide.

Here in 2002, times have changed. The "shall not justify" clause has become contradictory to the main point. The "shall not justify" clause is therefore, itself, now unconstitutional, because it now contradicts the main point.

Our laws must therefore make SOME provision for concealed carry in order to avoid infringing the right.

Now even if you don't accept that quite reasonable IMO logic, it's still true that "this shall not justify" simply means "this shall not justify." It doesn't prohibit. The Constitution doesn't justify baking chocolate chip cookies, either, but citizens are allowed to do so.

17 posted on 04/16/2002 11:16:15 AM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Good counter!!!!

Not even the anti's have pulled a "it wouldn't be constitutional" argument. I'm kind of disappointed to see it here.

18 posted on 04/16/2002 11:18:50 AM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
Here his how we did it last night in Des Plaines.

500 citizens, men women and children showed up at city hall and let out the flag in full voice.

* Here his how American citizens did it last night in Des Plaines. 500 citizens, men women and children showed up at city hall and let out the flag in full voice. *

* click here to read thread.*

end xxx end

19 posted on 04/16/2002 11:42:08 AM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in missouri
HEAR THE TRUTH.

May I suggest that you cut and paste this to flyers.

* George Washington Said "Only put Americans on guard tonight. *

In 1987 only eight states had Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW). Today you can count 33 states with shall issue CCW, and 11 states with may issue.

Then we have the six states with no issue. However of the six states, OH, MO, WI, MN, and KS are working hard and have bills pending. OH is closest with MO, WI, and KS closest to passing a CCW law. Illinois NRA grass roots group is dead at the morge on th CCW issue.

Semper Fi

end

20 posted on 04/16/2002 11:44:19 AM PDT by CHICAGOFARMER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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