Missouri Judge Rules “Safety” Overrides Right to Keep and Bear Arms

AmmoLand ^ | 27 November, 2019 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

A Democrat Missouri District Court judge, appointed after the lawsuit was filed, has ruled the lawsuit against the University of Missouri for violating the new Missouri Constitutional provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms, does not apply to the University. The judge claims he followed the requirements for “strict scrutiny” when he did so.

On August 5, 2014, the citizens of Missouri passed a Constitutional amendment to strengthen the protection of the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri. From ballotpedia.org:

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. 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.^[1]

On 19 September 2015, Professor of law Royce Barondes filed a lawsuit, based on the new amendment, challenging the complete ban of firearms on the University of Missouri campus, except for those granted special privileges by the University administration.

On April 22, 2016, Democrat Governor Nixon appointed Democrat politician Jeff Harris to the position of judge in the 13th Circuit. Harris was Governor Nixon's policy director at the time of his appointment.

[Wonder Warthog]

Impeach the bastard!

[marktwain]

“Safety” can be invoked to overturn or institute any rule or law at all.

Exactly. If "safety" can override a constitutionally protected right, we have no rights any judge is bound to uphold.

That is the idea, after all.

[CodeToad]

For our safety, we’ll keep our guns and get rid of the judges.

[Boomer]

For our safety, we’ll keep our guns and get rid of the judges.

Since this judge is incapable of understand our Constitution or Bill of Rights and since that's a key provision for him becoming a judge; he should be removed forthwith with all pension benefits forfeit.

I was going to say "get a rope" but I think he'll get the message and suffer enough without his fancy pension package. If only it could really happen...

[lurk]

This will be overruled on appeal. University property is state property, subject to state statute.

[ThunderSleeps]

Missouri judge - wrong on several levels. How do judges at this level get reprimanded?

[marktwain]

Gun control is built into Progressivism's DNA

Progressives deny any absolute right or wrong. They consider limits on government to be immoral.

[butlerweave]

Soro’s donation showed up ?

[FreedomNotSafety]

my tag line says it all

[justme4now]

"Constitutional Carry?"

Just another "law" .. allowing the citizens to protect themselves!

Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment ... made by both sides, revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms.

What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!

What the Constitution does do is identify what powers the people grant to the government.

This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the government what it can and cannot do, our Constitution is a limit on government.

That is why Marxists, Socialist, Progressive Democrats, et al. have such a disdain for our Constitution ...
It is a limitation on Government not a limitation on We The People.

Read the Second Amendment closely.
Nowhere does it state that the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the government cannot infringe on that right.

The framers of our Constitution believed that our right to bear arms is a natural right , not a right to be given to us by government.


Amendment II

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.

That’s it, that is the whole 2nd Amendment. Where does it say that the government gives us any right? It doesn’t, it only says that the government cannot infringe on this right. And when the often used argument arises that we will all be safer if we pass (another) gun law .. I am reminded on how our nations leading members at the time would respond to that ..

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
(Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776)

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery".
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787)

(Put another way: I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude..)



“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
(Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787)



“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
(Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788)



There are a ton more references that can be found but the following sums it all up rather nicely ...

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.
(Ayn Rand)

2ND AMENDMENT

[Jack Hammer]

Lefty political activist.

[Mashood]

Every a$$hole has an opinion.

[SERE_DOC]

Judge 'Thus I clothe my naked villainy with old odd ends stolen forth from holy writ'

King Richard III (I, iii, 336-338)

Marbury v. Madison 1803, vol 5, pg 137

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that
a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,
and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

emphasis added.

[Manly Warrior]

Indeed. The US Constitution is primary, then laws and then regulations ( well, regs included because of the admin state status since the APA etc).

I used to work for a MO university. I carried concealed daily on campus, in university vehicles and to university funded conferences etc ( where CC was lawful). Of course, I risked being fired.

I get it that the good professor wanted to challenge the rulings of the university, but the law already excuses CC w/o permission ( the CCWL is the permission slip, I suppose).

This case will be appealed to the MO SC, and we shall see what the court thinks, in a year or three.

[Pollster1]

Oaths mean nothing to them, unless there is force backing up the oath.

There is a force backing up the Oath. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, meaning that individuals still retail all the powers of government, and more. The militant left counts on our forbearance.

[marktwain]

As of September, four judges on the MO Supreme Court had been appointed by Democrats, three by Republicans, for what its worth.

[backwoods-engineer]

It doesn’t matter how many pro-freedom laws get passed, or how many pro-freedom Constitutional amendments a state may ratify. As long as there is a DEMONRAT judge available, freedom will be under attack. ALL DEMONRATS MUST BE DEFEATED. Start in your AO. We’re not voting our way out of this, but defeating DEMONRATS is a necessary part of the solution.

[itsahoot]

Next, the necessity to prevent “hate speech” will override right of free speech.

Already does in schools and most work places.

[itsahoot]

my tag line says it all

Illuminating.

[odawg]

“Already does in schools and most work places.”

When you clock in at your place of work, there is no constitutionally protected freedom of speech. That is the line that was used by the thugs who took a knee at the playing of the national anthem.

You can exercise freedom of speech on the job, of course, and get fired. That is what should have been done to the NFL protests.