Missouri Capitol gun

Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 5 passed yesterday with 62% of the vote and 3712 of 3898 precincts reported. It’s a clear statement of support for the right to keep and bear arms, clarifying that it’s a fundamental right; that it protects ammunition and accessories as well as firearms, and that the state is obligated to protect that right. The amendment could lead to the Show Me State becoming a constitutional carry (no permit or license required to keep or bear arms) state like Vermont and Arizona . . .

First, here’s the ballot question and the actual amendment:

Official Ballot Measure Wording:

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?
State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.

Fair Ballot Language:

“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.
“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. 

Here is the actual constitutional amendment:

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 questioned
; 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.

There will be some interesting after-action analysis regarding turnout and where the votes came from. As the amendment clearly includes the right to carry concealed weapons, there may be challenges to the state’s law forbidding the concealed carry of weapons without a concealed carry permit. Kansas passed a similar, but less complicated measure in 2010 as did Louisiana in 2012. Oklahoma has a similar measure on the ballot for this November.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Gun Watch

Recommended For You

72 Responses to UPDATE: MO RKBA Amendment Could Lead to Constitutional Carry

  1. and state house just got back their veto-proof republican majority in a special election yesterday (senate already has it) . . . . gonna see some interesting bills coming up soon . . . .

    • Missing section:

      “Any govt entity caught creating an antigun law (of any type of deegree) shall be laible for jail time and heavy monetary fines . And any law enforcement entity caught enforcing an antigun law shall to be held liable with jail or money fine as punishment.”

      • I ran into that problem with my first real gun, a Lorcin .25. No holster, but after firing a mag or two and figuring out how to load the mag such that it would actually feed, I wound up laying it on the ground between going downrange to reset targets and stuff. I was astonished how fast that much metal could get so hot!

  2. I live in Missouri and I VOTED. The conceal carry law has also been redone. Now, after August 28, 2014 the Sherrif’s office will hand out the permits. The classes needed will also be changed. One only needs to qualify with a pistol OR a revolver, not both as was the previous requirement. I would hope this sort of thing is passed in as many states as can accept such amendments. The feds are trying every thing that can to disarm us, let there be no doubt about this.

  3. As a one-time, ten-year resident of the Show Me State (purchased my first gun in Missouri, got my first CCW in Missouri), this outcome pleases me as much as it fails to surprise me.

    Now, my erstwhile-fellow Missourians: can you please explain Claire McCaskill?

    • two words: Todd Akin

      If he had dropped out and the party had a chance to appoint someone else for the ballot (say, Anne Wagner), this state would be completely red.

      • Beat me to it. She had no chance of re-election against an even halfway competent challenger. I liked John Brunner, smart guy, actually worked for a living. Oh well.

      • And it was Dems who pushed Akin over the top in a tough primary, because they knew he was toxic.

      • Repeating myself but:

        Oh, yes. That-Issue-that’s-not-an issue-because-it’s-Settled-Law. Any given candidate’s position on which never fails to come up in any election from dog catcher to president. And in spite of being such since 1973, has never failed to trip up Republicans at press conferences since.

        When GOP candidates learn to answer questions about abortion at press conferences without looking like an idiot, they’ll start winning elections again.

    • Claire contributed $1 million to Akin’s campaign to ensure she could run against the weakest Republican in the general election.

      Steelman vs. McCaskill would have been a rout. Claire knew this, so she campaigned for the opponent she knew she could beat.

      Since you don’t have to show proof of party affiliation to vote in Missouri primaries, I also wonder if Democrats were crossing the aisle to vote for Akin in the primary. Every other candidate on the ballot was stronger.

  4. Rodney Boyd did a good piece on this awhile back after talking with the original sponsors of the bill; the goal is indeed a framework for constitutional carry. He also indicated vast legistator support of overturning Nixon’s veto of the open carry preemption bill in this September session.

  5. This came literally days after the City Council of Kansas City, Missouri voted unanimously to restrict open carry. The vote was held at the urging of the mayor

  6. Oh man, so sweet. Wish I could see Nixon’s face right now. Missouri is back where we started, that Government and the Law has no jurisdiction on citizens practicing a Constitutional right. Hopefully the rest of the country follows their example.

  7. Oh, and Demanding Moms threw a hissy fit, too:

    After the vote, the group “Moms Demand Gun Sense in America” issued a statement warning: “Today Missouri voters approved a gun lobby-backed proposal that could gravely undermine public safety.”

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missourians-give-big-thumbs-up-to-guns-and-electronic-privacy/article_97047e9f-06e1-58fe-874e-32898833f244.html

    But don’t worry: they’re not anti-gun…

    • I am beginning to think that if these anti-2nd amendment activists hadn’t shaken the tree, these new pro-2nd amendment laws and court rulings would not have happened. Should we thank them?

    • “Moms” : “Public safety undermined! Blood in the streets! 74 school shootings!”
      Bored shepherd boy: “Help, it’s a wolf! Look, it’s a wolf!”
      They just don’t get it.

    • It will be interesting to see if incidents of the “knockout” game in St. Louis begin to decline after a few of the knockout game players are introduced to the “Glockout” game.

    • Sounds more like it was “voter” backed.

      The “gun lobby” didn’t get a vote, but all of the citizens did – and the majority of them wanted the amendment.

      • 20%of voters isn’t exactly backed by mo residents. It is a shame that the constitution will be changed with less than 20% of votes. Where is the outrage. I’m a CCW holder and believe in gun rights but this amendment will only cost mo millions in legal fees.

  8. Claire McCaskill?

    Sure.

    Money and long time political connections and urban liberal voting blocks.

    Re OC in MO

    I think the gun bill that Nixon vetoed is the better OC guarantee, strengthened immeasurably by the Amendment.

    We now have the votes to override his veto and now a veto proof legislature.

    And, I might add, all thss has been accomplished without OC fanatics pulling stupid stunts!

  9. I understand, almost, the part about increased costs of litigation, but how does decriminalizing (if, indeed, this amendment even does that) something lead to higher criminal justice costs?

    • Sincerely asking: why is he an idiot?

      If it’s the “legitimate rape” issue, I think it’s clear, based on subsequent dialogue, that he meant cases in which there is a legitimate (credible) belief that rape took place, not just an hysterical unbalanced woman accusing somebody of rape (e.g. the Duke lacrosse incident), which grossly skews the “rape” statistics.

      Again, sincerely asking: what other evidence shows he’s an idiot?

  10. I am of course thrilled that we won last night and very hopeful that we get the over ride next month. Not holding my breath though after what happened last year. Every Missouri voter needs to remember that Chris Koster torpedoed us last year when he could’ve just kept his mouth shut.

  11. Louisiana Supreme Court has been quite cautious in striking down any gun control laws despite the requirement of strict scrutiny for gun laws that was passed a couple of years ago by Louisiana voters. So, constitutional carry may or may not happen in Missouri with this new Amendment.

  12. It was not Akin’s fault, it took a combination of McCaskill’s funding, the RINO’s treasonous behavior and the stupidity of the general electorate to undercut Akin’s chances.

    He was actually right on all accounts. The stupid just couldn’t understand what truth he was conveying, and of course the opposition totally distorted his message.

    A totally despicable “disinformation” campaign as so often happens nowadays.

  13. I fully expect some anti-gun group to succeed in judge shopping efforts and find one willing to block this from taking effect, possibly due to the Governor placing it on a different ballot than that called for by the legislature, making Nixon’s move deliberate sabotage.

    • My understanding was that it’s up to the governor’s discretion to determine what election it is included with…..provided he does so in a certain amount of time.

      • no. the Joint Resolution 36, which set this up, said for it to be voted on during the November election or “at a special election called by the Governor”. Gov Nixon deliberately scheduled the vote for this and the transportation bill (Prop 7) to limit support vs the general election in the fall. He chose poorly.

  14. @Jug: what????!!!

    Akin was, and is, a total fool. I almost wonder if the DNC is paying him to hang around.

    His remarks were factually incorrect and outrageously wrong and offensive.

  15. Why would this lead to “constitutional carry”? The new text sounds a lot like many other states already have, and they still have licenses. It would seem that shall-issue would be compliant with the wording.

  16. This is going to be interesting. I live in Kansas city, missouri and they just banned open carry.So now if I get in trouble open carrying, I can call on the state to fight the city for me?

  17. What I haven’t seen anybody comment about is the wording “violent felons.” Is there an implication in the amendment that non-violent felons should not have their 2A rights limited? You can be sure that will make it to the courts, soon enough.

    • I got no beef with non-violent felons carrying. If there is anybody that needs a gun it would be a felon who spends all day in the company of other felons. /s The violent ones carry anyway, the non-violent ones need the protection.

  18. My only concern about constitutional carry is if it eventually leads to no concealed carry permits needed, therefore none issued, and the dropping of qualifying classes down the road.., that would not help our reciprocity agreements with some states.

    • Some of the Constitutional Carry states, such as as Alaska, maintain a permit process for the purposes of reciprocity.

      • I know, I just hope we maintain ours for that purpose as well.
        It’s not as if a poorly worded new law hasn’t come back to haunt the proponents of that law before.

  19. I can’t wait to get out of MIssouri. Let’s give every drunk redneck a gun. Great idea whats the worst that could happen. I’m getting out of here ASAP!

    • See ya later alligator!!!
      I am an educated, intelligent person who keeps up to date with what’s going on in our nation, state and local governments. The constitution give me the right to keep and bear arms, and I plan on doing such. I don’t consider myself a “redneck”, and apparently there are plenty of other citizens (who aren’t “rednecks” either), who helped this amendment pass the vote.
      Illegal gun owners (obtained by illegal means) are, more often than not, the perpetrators of violent crimes. Another statistic to keep in mind…most violent crimes are committed using common household items other than guns. Maybe we should ban kitchen knives, hammers, gasoline, etc, as well, to keep everyone safe.
      My AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It is a defense weapon. For my gun to do it’s job, it only needs to make the person thinking about committing the crime, rethink their decision.

      • ” The constitution give me the right to keep and bear arms,”

        NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

        Your CREATOR gave you the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution merely records it on paper and is supposed to prohibit government from infringing on it!

        Will you people ever get that through your thick skulls?

        • But… But… But, Rich, if what you say is true then however can people believe that the Supreme Court can rule with any authority that this infringement or that infringement is okay? Say it ain’t so!

          /sarc 😉

    • I’m sure they’ll LOVE you in Chicago, why dont you go there?

      Sincerely,
      A college educated electronics technician with many, many guns.

  20. Way to go Missouri. The right to … Bear Arms… Self protection… and they can’t take that away from me!

  21. This will be a very interesting battle that will be fought here in the courts of Missouri.
    I just happen to be one of the felons not mention in the amendment . No violence and no victim .in my case . So after losing my rights to handle a modern firearm ” yes I can still own them ” . I may have the right to handle modern guns again .
    I think it will be best to let this be tested in the court system .
    This country of ours is a gun culture . If you do not believe this or accept it . I would suggest moving to Europe or Africa .
    one of the reason’s we are this way is due to my great etc… uncle Ben Walker and his being able to translate french at Valley Forge .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *