Missouri Constitutional Carry

[Griz]

I suck at reading statutes. Is this what I think it is? Nevada and MO introducing constitutional carry.


http://www.guns.com/2015/03/16/two-more-states-introduce-constitutional-carry-measures/


http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills151/billpdf/intro/HB1250I.PDF

 

[kcgunfan]

I just took a quick look on the phone, and I'm not due what the proposed MO bill does, but it didn't appear to be constitutional carry.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Redbaron007]

Sure has the air about it.

 

[Redbaron007]

I just took a quick look on the phone, and I'm not due what the proposed MO bill does, but it didn't appear to be constitutional carry.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

In summary, it deletes the info about carrying concealed.

 

[kcgunfan]

I see it now on my laptop. They don't make it easy to do. Everything looks good with it. But I still would not call it constitutional carry since 21.750 is still there.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

Nevermind - I missed the brackets!

 

[OC for ME]

... since 21.750 is still there.

^^^This...and...more of the same...

 

[Redbaron007]

I see it now on my laptop. They don't make it easy to do. Everything looks good with it. But I still would not call it constitutional carry since 21.750 is still there.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

What is your thoughts of A5 changing A1S23 and how it applies to 21.750?

 

[ThatFireGuy]

Question

So I have been researching and Calling everyone under the sun that I can think of to find the answer and so far it hasn't worked. So here goes... Open Carry is Legal Through out the state of Missouri , However there are still cities that restrict that down requiring a CCW Permit to exercise that right. One , is that in violation of amendment 5 or any other law and Two , if this Conceal carry with out a permit passes will the cities still be allowed to restrict it required a permit to do so in there town ?? Thanks for any help

 

[kcgunfan]

What is your thoughts of A5 changing A1S23 and how it applies to 21.750?

As it currently stands 21.750 is still the law in Missouri. Amendment 5 may change that, and I think it should. But the law is still on the books. Since I'm a widower with two kids, I don't have the freedom to test that out. So I have to sit on the sidelines and provide support.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[color of law]

16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:

The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted. No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.

 

[OC for ME]

Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 August 28, 2014

[h=3]Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories--exception--rights to be unalienable.[/h] 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. 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.


Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.
(Amended August 5, 2014)

(2004) Section does not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting statutes allowing or disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons; the Concealed-Carry Act is therefore constitutional. Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.banc).

Courts are loath to tell their predecessors that they were wrong. But, this strict scrutiny language could changer their mind.

 

[Redbaron007]

As it currently stands 21.750 is still the law in Missouri. Amendment 5 may change that, and I think it should. But the law is still on the books. Since I'm a widower with two kids, I don't have the freedom to test that out. So I have to sit on the sidelines and provide support.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Sounds good. I agree with you. I wasn't challenging you, but only confirming my own assumptions about what I thought you thought.

 

[BB62]

Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 August 28, 2014

Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories--exception--rights to be unalienable.

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. 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.


Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.
(Amended August 5, 2014)

(2004) Section does not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting statutes allowing or disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons; the Concealed-Carry Act is therefore constitutional. Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844(Mo.banc).

Courts are loath to tell their predecessors that they were wrong. But, this strict scrutiny language could changer their mind.

(my bold)

Uh, what about the fact that the language referring to the legislature's say over concealed carry was taken out of Article 1, Section 23 (by Amendment 5)??

 

[HP995]

Love all the brackets!

An even better way would be one bracket at the very start and another at the very end.

 

[Drytchnath]

It still would make it beneficial to have a CCW with the exceptions it gives to subdivisions 7 and 9. Not sure I would call it true constitutional carry because of that.