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

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

To: john in missouri
Colorado has nearly identical, if not identical, language in its Constitution. That did not prevent the may issue law, under which I obatined a permit when I lived there. Almost every county sheriff in CO (with the notable exceptions of the ones in Denver and Boulder counties) operate as if the law were shall issue.

Even the libs at the Denver Post came out in favor of a shall issue law on the editorial page.

26 posted on 04/16/2002 1:06:15 PM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: john in missouri
Hi again, john in missouri,

Here is the bottom line.

Today, at this very moment, you and I can exert our RIGHT to "bear arms" in Missouri.

IF need be, it is much easier and less costly to defend a RIGHT, than a privilege. RIGHTS are inalienable, absolute, enumerated and categorical.

This raises the probability of a victorious court battle significantly.

Privileges, on the other hand, granted through legislation, are fluid and subject to easy and numerous changes, thus lowering the probability of a victorious court battle.

You surely will run into the bogus "compelling state interest" argument, which will be the nail in the coffin to your court battle to defend a privilege.

You are still begging for a privilege from the MO legislature and you cannot exert that privilege and if you do exert the privilege before it is granted you will not be able to defend that action, constitutionally and will surely lose.

Go ahead, knock yourself out using your energy and political capital on a privilege versus a right, which is as about as stable as a foundation built on sand.

If the a conceal carry law ever does become enacted in MO, I will never apply for the privilege.

When you do, you have just registered your firearm for future confiscation.

40 posted on 04/16/2002 7:53:53 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

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