Judge continues order against concealed guns

[SaintLouisBlues]

A St. Louis judge ruled today that Missouri's concealed gun law violates the state constitution and ordered that the new statute remain unimplemented.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer clears the way for the Missouri Supreme Court to consider the matter.

(snip)

Opponents sued on claims the law violates a state constitution provision dating to 1875 that guarantees the right to bear arms and adds "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

http://tinyurl.com/u454

No concealed weapons law in Missouri until further notice. If there
is any way to widen the state's massive urban/rural divide, this
will do it.

[GRClarkesq]

1. Curious to see what MO Supreme Court makes of this

I read the constitutional provision in question and I have to agree with the pro carry position. The MO constitution just meant to say there is no constitutional right to carry, thus leaving the issue to the legislature.

[Noordam]

2. I will go with the Judge

"but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." That sounds clear to me. well maybe as clear as mud.. But if you want the problem solve change the constitution of the state....

[jiacinto]

3. People have the right to defend themselves

As a recent crime victim I fully support the right of people to defend themselves.

[Judi Lynn]

4. The judge is actually referring to the existing Missouri constitution

which prohibits wearing weapons.

That's what posters Clark and Noordam were discussing. It's helpful to refer to the actual law, as a sensible guideline.

[Shirley_U_Geste]

5. the state constitution does not justify concealment

Well, duh, the state constitution does not justify concealment.

If it did, there would have been no reason to pass a concealed carry law.

But the state constitution does not prohibit concealment anywhere. I am betting this will be overturned, but I don't know the composition of the court.

[Bandit]

7. I'm no constitutional attorney but why put that wording in the Constitutio

in the first place unless they were specifically denying the right to concealment of firearms? If it was questionable why not leave it just the right to bear arms? I think intent here is going to be the key.

[DUreader]

10. I wonder if it goes back to civil war times, Missouri was devastated

[DoNotRefill]

15. I wonder if people have thought this through...

if that statement means the carrying of concealed weapons is unconstitutional in MO, what about the police who have been carrying concealed for decades? Are they suddenly in violation of the Constitution?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

The "does not justify" means the right to CCW isn't constitutionally protected, it's part of the state police powers. As such, the law is constitutional.

[damnraddem]

6. So do I. That's why I oppose concealed carry.

So hard to defend oneself from lunatics with concealed guns.

[Romulus]

8. hah hah

So hard to defend oneself from lunatics with concealed guns.

dam-nra-ddem

:evilgrin:hee hee :evilgrin:
(Sorry, everytime I see your handle, that's what sticks out)


Anyway:
How would opposing a rigorous self-defense licensing system, with police background checks and training standards, prevent "lunatics with concealed guns" from running around? :shrug:

[GRClarkesq]

9. The key word is "justify"

To me this means the Constitution is not creating a right to concealed carry. If the drafters wanted to prohibit concealed carry they could have used the word "allow", thus removing the matter from the legislature.

Having grown up in Missouri and worked a little in Missouri politics, this is just another round of rural/urban conflict.

[truthisfreedom]

11. hmm. i wonder if that can be done in minnesota.

not sure what our constitution has to say about it...

[GRClarkesq]

12. Went shopping for cases

and found:

State v. Shelby, 90 Mo. 302, 2 S.W. 468 (1886).

"2. The right of the legislature to prohibit the wearing of concealed weapons under state constitutions, in (p.305)many respects like our own, is now generally conceded. Indeed, our constitution, in express terms, says that it is not intended thereby to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons. The portions of the act which make it an offence for any one to carry concealed upon his person a dangerous or deadly weapon, is clearly within the legitimate domain of legislative power."

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/90mo302.html

[Judi Lynn]

13. Update

Judge strikes down law allowing concealed weapons in Missouri
Friday November 07, 2003
By JIM SALTER
Associated Press Writer
ST. LOUIS (AP) A Missouri law allowing concealed weapons and approved over the objection of the governor was struck down Friday by a judge who called it unconstitutional.

Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer said the law violates a clause in the state constitution that says the right to bear arms ``shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.''

The Legislature overrode Gov. Bob Holden's veto of the measure in September.

Holden called the ruling ``appropriate,'' and noted the law would have allowed concealed guns in places such as schools, hospitals and day care centers.

Attorney General Jay Nixon, whose office argued in favor of the law, immediately appealed the ruling.

``We will be asking the Missouri Supreme Court to expedite this matter so we can have a full and final decision on this important public policy issue,'' Nixon said in a statement. He declined an interview request. (snip/...)

http://cbsnewyork.com/national/ConcealedGuns-aa/resources_news_html

Gee, I always thought Jay Nixon was a completely effective Attorney General. Do you think he's simply trying to save time?

[GRClarkesq]

14. Articles discussing same event

Judge entered TRO initially and ruled against the provision today. Ultimately an issue for the MO S. Ct.