BREAKING: Missouri Voters Strengthen State Gun Rights

Hawken Rifle (courtesy wikipedia.org)

Yesterday, “Missouri voters opted to strengthen the rights of gun owners are already enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by adopting Amendment No 5,” politicmo.com reports. “The amendment adds to the state constitution ‘that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right.’ Except if you’re a felon of someone deemed by a court to be a danger to yourself or others. The Missouri amendment’s protections include ammo and “accessories typical to the normal function of such arms.” Missouri state courts must now . . .

apply the most stringent form of judicial review to gun laws.

Opponents, including law enforcement officials from St. Louis and Kansas City, [had] expressed concerns that the measure would give defense attorneys more opportunity to challenge restrictions already in place such as guns in churches or schools, or requirements for training before someone can obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

And that’s just two of the upsides. Congratulations Show Me Staters.

comments

  1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    booya – passed by a wide margin. Suck on it Shannon. gravy train is over for you.

    Besides, if any of those “officials” bothered to read MO law, anyone with a CCW permit could carry into schools, churches, bars, etc. already. this amendment changes NOTHING but it does keep the state from going to “may issue” or enacting a mag limit

  2. avatar Phil COV says:

    State by state. Let freedom ring! Congrats MO!

    1. avatar Robert W. says:

      Yeah, bring this amendment over here to California, we need it, BAD!

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Apparently, most states do!

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        We (Kalifornistan) need to find judges who will actually enforce the US Constitution and tell Gov. Moonbeam what country he’s living in.

  3. avatar great unknown says:

    Part of this beautifully crafted amendment:”…the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.”

    I.e., if anybody, at any level of government, tries to impose any restrictions, the state MUST take measures to slap them down. Or, if Federal, refuse cooperation and sue in federal court.

    1. avatar Gregolas says:

      This is great! The wording prevents any MO Attorney General to refuse to defend firearms rights. (As our current U.S. AG does) Way to go!

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The wording is no stronger than 2A, which has no exceptions not dreamed up long after it was written. This one can also be completely ignored just as Holder ignores 2A or pretends he can’t read 27 words. We still need to be armed, and awake. They’re sneaky bastards.

    2. avatar Scrubula says:

      I want this in all 45 states that aren’t already disarmed.
      Sorry California, good luck but this probably won’t happen over there in my lifetime.

    3. avatar Rick says:

      I wonder how this is going to affect the recently-passed open carry ban in KC MO.

  4. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    I’ll be traveling to Missouri next week. Should I be worried about blood in the streets like the wild west?

    Here’s the irony – With the one-way interstate reciprocity (Missouri honors Illinois concealed carry licenses but Illinois doesn’t honor Missouri’s), My Illinois CCL is actually more useful in Missouri than it is in Illinois.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I’m working in St. Louis right now.

      Thus far, as of this morning, I can report no observed increase in flowing blood in the streets.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You anywhere near the OK corral?

  5. avatar GReg says:

    Congradulations to the people of Missouri.

  6. avatar Skyler says:

    So the state must consider the right unalienable, but what about the cities?

    Seems the language could have been clearer. I have no doubt that a Court will find plenty of room to interpret this to mean the opposite of what we might expect.

    1. avatar great unknown says:

      If there is an unalienable right at the state level, no sub-jurisdiction can infringe it. And, by the language of the amendment, the state has the obligation to quash any such attempts.

      OTOH, the problem with the courts may never be solved unless and until we bring back the ancient Athenian custom of ostracism.

      1. avatar B says:

        The cities in MO can only regulate open carry. I’m not sure what provision allows them to do that, its what the state by state carry law site says.

        1. avatar great unknown says:

          That was before this amendment passed. Stay tuned for further developments.

        2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          Missouri statutes allow regulation of open carry, but . . . . change is coming. Boom.

    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      BTW – the MO statutes that allow cities to regulate open carry also have pre-emption so they cannot regulate anything regulated under the weapons statutes

    3. avatar Scrubula says:

      Most states require cities to be equally or less restrictive than state law.
      Not all, and not on all legal topics, but if certain cities abuse their power I assume they will be told to stop.

  7. avatar B says:

    Very nice. Even as states like Massachusetts go dark, free states like Missouri carry the torch. Progs are clamping down on the places they “own” but don’t lose heart we ARE winning.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “we ARE winning.

      Agreed.

      But, I do get confused sometimes. I keep hearing that OCT and similar groups are causing rights to be eroded all over the country.

  8. avatar Asdf says:

    It would have been better if the wording included “violent felons”. Considering what can net you a felony these days.

    1. avatar Blkcat says:

      It actually does state violent felons.

      Proposed new Article I, 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 adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

  9. avatar the ruester says:

    So, you mean to tell me that these ignorant wife beaters were actually able to READ the ballot? And how did they get to the polling place, everybody knows there are no roads in republican counties. I’ll have a talk with my bro, God; I’m sure he can figure this out…

    -Michael Bloomberg

  10. avatar Bg says:

    Im from Missouri and i don’t get what this mean. Is open carry unregulated now? Can i OC anything anywhere now without getting arrested?

    1. avatar Kent says:

      The short answer is, No. Read the amendment, the information is in there.

      1. avatar Bg says:

        I’ve read it alot but stilll don’t understand it

        1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          open carry is regulated city by city. go to http://www.missouricarry.com/forums. there is a sticky there about which cities allow it. this amendment does not change open carry.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          What’s the status of that, by the way?

          Does changing that law still have momentum?

  11. avatar Latemarch says:

    Now that the language against concealed carry has been stripped, does that mean that Missouri is now a constitutional carry state?

    1. avatar Bg says:

      I’m thinking the same thing

    2. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Post on this to follow.

    3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      shhhhhhhhh . . . . . . .

  12. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

    Why is it always noted that at least two “law enforcement officials” are counted among the critics? Would it not be just as accurate to write: “Opponents, including passive aggressive liberal boss-cows from St. Louis and violent statists from Kansas City, [had] expressed concerns that the measure would . . . .”?

  13. avatar Anon in CT says:

    The state of CT also has a nice arms protection provision in its Constitution – it’s clearer than the 2nd A. Didn’t help a bit.

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Ditto RI: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      Click here for a full list of state RKBA provisions.

      1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

        Dang! who do we need to elect so we can we get Texas laws back to 1836 “Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.”

        1. avatar B says:

          We have an all-star 2015 Texas legislative group coming up. Bug the crap out of our reps to get the original wording returned and put it to a public vote!

          Maybe a petition or something? Perhaps some group dedicated to open carry could do a rally for an amendment that would make legislative open carry action no longer needed?

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I was thinking the same exact thought. In the end that amendment to Missouri’s constitution is nothing more than an ideal, words on paper. Unless the mass of people who approved that amendment are willing to force compliance, it is meaningless. As is the case in Connecticut.

      1. avatar B says:

        It proves the voters in Missouri won’t tolerate legislators attempting to infringe on their liberty. Its just some words on a piece of paper, but its backed up by the people’s actions, unlike the northeastern slave bloc.

    3. avatar Dave357 says:

      CT laws would have been worse than they are now (as in no shall issue carry), without that provision.

  14. avatar Random_Commenter says:

    I wish someone could bring this kind of lawmaking streak to MD, NY, CT, CA, HI, NJ, ….etc.

    1. avatar B says:

      That’s the difference between the free and slave states. The legislatures in the northeast feel they can operate with impunity and the voters there have yet to prove them wrong.

      1. avatar Phil says:

        Northeast legislatures are _closer_ to Europe… enough said 😉

  15. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    The Good voters of Missouri are showing all how to do it right. Extra protections should not be needed, but are.

    Thanks again Missou!

  16. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    All very nice until ONE MAN in a black robe decides said amendment is unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Jomo says:

      Uhm…. How does a judge declare an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional. That is illogical on its face. I know we’re all concerned about judicial tyranny, but gimme a break!

      1. avatar B says:

        Hypothetically, in the case of an amendment being passed that violates a previous amendment without appealing it. Say, a pro slavery amendment saying its cool now as long as all races can be equally enslaved without first repealing the 13th. Hypothetically. Where the amended Constitution would contradict itself.

      2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        1) California passed an amendment (Prop 8) against Gay Marriage. Fed Judge threw it out b/c the freedom/right to marry is considered a constitutional right and this was seen as codifying discriminiation.

        2) Michigan passed an amendment against affirmative action in higher education. SCOTUS upheld it b/c the people of state have a right to decide how to govern themselves

        it is possible to challenge the amendment in MO, which is what I expect will happen with some of Bloomy’s $$$ that was behind the ballot challenge (which MO Sup Ct threw out). . . . . hold on to your seats.

  17. avatar Anon says:

    Curtis in Ill:

    I would look more carefully at:

    http://ago.mo.gov/Concealed-Weapons/

  18. avatar Anon says:

    Curtis–

    Read too quickly. Never mind.

  19. It tanked in the St Louis metro area, but passed handily throughout the rest of the state.

    The wording on the ballot contained ominous warnings about unknown cists of potential lawsuits.

  20. Now we just have to override our Gov’s veto of a recent gun law passed, and I think we now have the votes to do it, and we will have OC across the state.

    All without the “help” of OC Chipotle Ninjas going full retard in our communities.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      But also without them hurting, so your point is null.

      1. avatar Blkcat says:

        His point was that you dont have to antagonize the gun free crowd by doing stupid stunts while wearing your rifle. And he is right.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          He has no factual point. He has an opinion. He states OCT did not HELP in MO…while illogically trying to imply that matters.

          OCT did not hurt MO gun rights laws, either. The ire against OC activism is misplaced, as there is precisely ZERO data that they are “hurting our cause.” Those states with citizens trying to strengthen rights are strengthening rights…all over the country. OCT is not hurting anyone, and there IS evidence that they are HELPING in Texas where they are ACTIVE.

          But, hey, let’s do be just like the anti’s and never miss a chance to emote non-provable nonsense at shouting volumes so everyone can hear…because more such emoting is EXACTLY what the gun rights debate needs.

        2. avatar Blkcat says:

          “All without the “help” of OC Chipotle Ninjas going full retard in our communities.”

          Walking into a public business with an AR-15 strapped to your back does not help the situation. His point, which I thought was fairly clear.

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          I understand is incorrect point perfectly well…you don’t need to repeat it.

          Apparently, you are not comprehending what *I* was saying about WHY is point is nonsense.

          Neither you nor he can prove OCT has harmed the gun rights movement in any way, shape or form. Claiming it does or has is unsubstantiated, emotional bleating. Thinking something is ‘fact’ does not make it so, and do, please, try to understand that.

          That YOU and a few others don’t like what they are doing in Texas means pretty much nothing, and the constant complaining and whining about it is not advancing our cause either.

          If, on the other hand, you have specific legislative action under way that explicitly states, “due to the nature of OC activists in Texas, we need to pass this law,” I’m all ears. But, just disliking their behavior does not, prima facie, mean they are hurting the cause.

          Both logic and data are important in the gun rights debate. Otherwise, we look just like the anti’s and all the whining about nothing they do.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          In addition, whether it alienates people or not is completely unimportant, 2A exists and will not be voted out anytime soon. Eventually we are going to be forced to face people screeching even louder than Paul about how awful OC is, either that or give up OC of anything. Either we have a right or we do not. If we let loudmouths within our own ranks (supposedly) forbid us from exercising those rights we do have, as OCT, then we do not have those rights, they will be formally removed, and we will NEVER get them back. And, of course, if our government has the power to outlaw OC of long guns. then they have the power to outlaw OC of handguns. And if they have the power to regulate guns to that extent, outlawing all guns is not far behind. The operative phrase is “shall not be infringed”, allowing no one to outlaw anything, including Paul.

    2. avatar B says:

      And what actions led to this amendment being put to a vote? What political neccessity made the legislature decide the 2nd amendment needed to be further protected from infringement?

      Activists brought the fact that our rights were being infringed to the public’s knowledge. That we were being prevented from conducting a legal activity by unlawful actors. I am sick of people swooping in after the fact saying this would have happened without the fight. You are wrong here Paul.

  21. It happened without idiotic stunts aka Chipotle Ninja tactics. That is the point. We did not have rednecks marching through black neighborhoods in STL with their ARs at the low ready.

    THAT is what I am talking about.

    But of course you know that already.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email