Judge Rejects Second Challenge to Concealed Weapons Law

[demsrule4life]

ST. LOUIS (AP) A St. Louis judge on Thursday turned down a second challenge to Missouri's concealed weapons law, this one over whether it violates a state provision against unfunded mandates.

http://www.kmox.com/news/article.php?id=11757

[MrSandman]

1. Who'da thunk

[alwynsw]

2. Another judge with his head screwed on straight!

Leave it to "flyover country" to grasp the meanings of RKBA. The loonies on the coasts evidently have some difficulty with it.

I think I'll stay in Kentucky.

[MrBenchley]

3. You bet....

From the story: "Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer said he saw no reason to delay an appeal of his November decision that the law violates the state constitution. The Missouri Supreme Court is to hear the appeal Jan. 22.
On Nov. 7, Ohmer granted an injunction against enacting the law, citing a clause in the state constitution declaring that the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.'' "

http://www.kmox.com/news/article.php?id=11757

Facts are such annoying little things, aren;t they?

[GRClarkesq]

4. "shall not justify"?

interesting choice of words

[PFaithful]

5. Facts

He is a trial judge and looking at a state constitutional issue. He has sent it to an appellate court which is the right thing to do. It will go to the Supreme Court of Missouri which is the proper judicial body to decide the issue. A trial judge has to abide by the Constitution.

[MrBenchley]

6. What does the Missouri Constitution say?

"a clause in the state constitution declaring that the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.'' "

[MrSandman]

7. But an act of the legislature might?

[GRClarkesq]

10. Exactly

I think the MO constitution just states it does not protect a right to concealed carry and leaves it to the legislature.

[the_acid_one]

8. Differant laws for differant times.

When the state constitution was written, you could bet pretty much everyone owned or had been exposed to guns, so it was no big deal to wear them openly, right on your hip. Times have changed, exposed weapons tend to freak people out (especially weak minded fools who piss themselves at the sight of a gun). Concealed carry has replaced open carry, and thats really all there is to it.

[CO Liberal]

9. In Other Words.....

Concealed carry has replaced open carry, and thats really all there is to it.

So in your world, black is white, left is right, etc, etc, etc.......

[the_acid_one]

13. Yes, Exactly.

and by "Yes, Exactly". I mean, No.

In Ye Olden Dayze carrying openly was no big deal, and in fact prefered, there was no need to carry concealed because people were comfortable with weapons being worn openly, and in fact, if you were concealing weapons, you were probably a scoundrel.

Now, if I wanted to walk through town with a gun on my hip, people would scatter before me like scared bunnies. Most of the populous is no longer comfortable with weapons being right out in the open. It draws undue attention and would be a disturbance to the peace, so now concealed carry is prefered, as it doesnt scare the simple minded sheep and allows those that wish to the means to protect themselves.

In Tennessee, there is no law stating that I have to carry concealed, if I have a carry permit I can legally stroll around town with a pair of six-shooters on my hip. Obviously, this would make those that are inclined to fear weapons piss themselves and most likely curl up and cry.

I would carry concealed for the sake of those who fear guns, not because I am obligated to.

[MrBenchley]

16. Hahahahaha

"if I have a carry permit I can legally stroll around town with a pair of six-shooters on my hip. Obviously, this would make those that are inclined to fear weapons piss themselves and most likely curl up and cry."
Gee, what's wrong with them? Don't they believe in Mary Rosh's propaganda?

Can't imagine why somebody who runs a restaurant or store wouldn't love to have an armed stranger wander on to the premises...(snicker)

"I would carry concealed for the sake of those who fear guns, not because I am obligated to."
Yes, you're doing it for the little people out there...how selfless and touching (snicker)

[hansberrym]

11. More "anti logic" from the antis

Only if one believed that the RKBA literally meant "every thing"
could Judge Ohmer's ruling be correct.


If the MO constitution stated:
"EVERY THING" shall NOT justify the wearing of concealed weapons,

then the judge would be justified in reading the amendment to mean that: NOTHING shall justify the wearing of concealed weapons.


Now the RKBA means a lot to me, but it does not literally mean EVERYTHING !

[MrBenchley]

12. Hand us another laugh...

The RKBA crowd puts their popguns above every other consideration on earth...

[hansberrym]

14. Do you agree with the Judge? Does the RKBA literally mean "everything"?

And yeah, it would be funny if it were not coming from a Judge.

If you agree with the Judge's reasoning, please state why you agree.

[MrBenchley]

15. And next ask me

whether I really want to debate a grotesque misinterpretation YOU made up.

[hansberrym]

17. In other words, you don't have a reply...

If a particular thing does not justify X.

Does it follow that NOTHING justifies X ?

Of course not.



But then as Judge Ohmer and his comrades would have us believe-
in the Dialectic anything is possible.