• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A5 Decision

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Interesting, need to read it in more detail. Looks like the SC still believes a permit is necessary for concealed carry though.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Interesting, need to read it in more detail. Looks like the SC still believes a permit is necessary for concealed carry though.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

When I briefly scanned it, I thought I caught something like that...but wasn't sure. I'll read it tonight.
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
From the decision...
"It was not necessary to include this deletion in the summary statement as the
legislature continues to have the authority to regulate concealed weapons just as they did
prior to the amendment. Deletion of this language clarified that the right to wear
concealed weapons is subject to the same legislative restrictions that the General
Assembly may place on the right to bear arms generally, which is consistent with this
Court’s previous interpretation of the deleted language"

It's as if the Missouri Supreme Court thought that the concealed carry language in the Missouri Constitution prior to this last change, was there to actually prohibit us from carrying concealed. I guess the good Missouri legislators went against the Constitution and let us carry anyway? I didn't know the Constitution prohibited us from anything. That's apparently why the deletion means nothing. Pretty incredible.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
What roll are you expecting him to slow?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 

STLDaniel

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Saint Louis
From the decision...
"It was not necessary to include this deletion in the summary statement as the
legislature continues to have the authority to regulate concealed weapons just as they did
prior to the amendment. Deletion of this language clarified that the right to wear
concealed weapons is subject to the same legislative restrictions that the General
Assembly may place on the right to bear arms generally, which is consistent with this
Court’s previous interpretation of the deleted language"

It's as if the Missouri Supreme Court thought that the concealed carry language in the Missouri Constitution prior to this last change, was there to actually prohibit us from carrying concealed. I guess the good Missouri legislators went against the Constitution and let us carry anyway? I didn't know the Constitution prohibited us from anything. That's apparently why the deletion means nothing. Pretty incredible.

I don't think so.
"... the legislature continues to have the authority to regulate concealed weapons just as they did prior to the amendment."

They didn't believe it was prohibited by the previous language. They believed deleting it had no affect, therefore they couldn't have believed it was prohibited then or it still would be under the new language. They were stating that since this didn't confer or take away anything, it's inclusion previously only creates confusion, and it's removal clears that confusion up without changing any interpretation the court has had. Since it didn't really change anything, it wasn't required in to be stated as part of the ballot title.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,964
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This decision was designed to deny both sides a victory. Their decision is nothing more than skullduggery. This court knows that the USSC has made clear that any state may afford their citizens more rights and more protections than the federal constitution. So, for this court to give themselves plausible legitimacy they relied on Heller and McDonald in engineering their decision. In other words, a cop out.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Deletion of this language clarified that the right to wear concealed weapons is subject to the same legislative restrictions that the General Assembly may place on the right to bear arms generally, which is consistent with this Court’s previous interpretation of the deleted language"
What!!!

Those robed bureaucrats believe that the state can place restrictions on the right to bear arms, OC, as they can on CC?

R[ight]KBAs
or
P[ermission]KBAs?
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
This decision was designed to deny both sides a victory. Their decision is nothing more than skullduggery. This court knows that the USSC has made clear that any state may afford their citizens more rights and more protections than the federal constitution. So, for this court to give themselves plausible legitimacy they relied on Heller and McDonald in engineering their decision. In other words, a cop out.

I don't disagree.....other than I think they did not want to overturn 60% of the voters who voted for this amendment....but didn't want to give either side a solid victory.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
Wow. That sure is ... something. I'm not sure what to think.

The majority argues that yeah, A5 says stuff, but it doesn't say anything Article 1 Section 23 didn't say before so, meh. Words don't matter. It's all good.

Laura Denvir Stith in her concurring opinion goes to great lengths to say that the public is stupid and so "strict scrutiny" doesn't mean "strict scrutiny" and you non-attorney voters are stupid if you think it does because you were too stupid to understand the legal meaning of the term before you voted for A5.

Ironically, I agree most with the reasoning in the dissent of Richard B. Teitelman as he argues that hey, A5 means what it says it means. But then he says and the summary should have said more stuff about what it really means and because it doesn't, the vote should be invalidated.

I'm glad it was upheld but am worried at the convolutions and ignoring of plain language the majority and Stith used to uphold the summary. Such convoluted thinking 1) does not imbue me with good feelings about the legal minds on our state supreme court and 2) bode ill for future strict scrutiny challenges involved A5 - in fact it almost guarantees the need for a federal level appeal up the line to obtain a plain reading interpretation.

Does anyone know if this decision and its reasoning can be used as a precedent for future A5 cases?
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
A5's wording itself was not before the court. The courts discussion as to the wording and intent is dicta.

Thank you for the answer to that. So we have no precedent but do know that Justice Stith will tie herself up in knots to argue that plain language doesn't mean what it says it means, much like SCOTUS Justice Roberts. While she vehemently argues to ignore strict scrutiny as the term being intended as a colloquial and not legal phrasing we have this from a news article:

"On July 24, 2014, just two weeks before Missouri voters elected to add Amendment 5 to the state constitution, Republican State Senator Kurt Schaefer addressed a crowd that had gathered for the annual Watermelon Feed in Neosho, a rural city a short drive from both Joplin and the Oklahoma border. He urged them to vote yes on the measure. "If we pass this, we will have the strongest right to keep and bear arms in any state in the United States," Schaefer said, according to the Neosho Daily News. "I look forward to that day when we get this passed."
Schaefer, a Republican based in Columbia, had sponsored the bill that put Amendment 5 on the August ballot, and it was under his watch that the bill's language broadened to include concepts like unalienable rights and "strict scrutiny," a legal term that essentially means the government must meet an extremely high standard to regulate something.
Schaefer explained, "Anything that infringes on that right gets strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of review by a court to hold the government to the tightest restraint, and it is the affirmative obligation of the state of Missouri to uphold that right.""

That just flies in the face of everything Stith wrote about strict scrutiny in her concurring opinion.

As COL has clarified this is just dicta but it still may very well go to indicating how the justices will approach this in the future.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
From the decision...
"It was not necessary to include this deletion in the summary statement as the
legislature continues to have the authority to regulate concealed weapons just as they did
prior to the amendment. Deletion of this language clarified that the right to wear
concealed weapons is subject to the same legislative restrictions that the General
Assembly may place on the right to bear arms generally, which is consistent with this
Court’s previous interpretation of the deleted language"

It's as if the Missouri Supreme Court thought that the concealed carry language in the Missouri Constitution prior to this last change, was there to actually prohibit us from carrying concealed. I guess the good Missouri legislators went against the Constitution and let us carry anyway? I didn't know the Constitution prohibited us from anything. That's apparently why the deletion means nothing. Pretty incredible.


Uh, it was. The language of the statue did make it illegal to carry concealed. The Legislature passed a conceal carry law, the antis sued saying the MoRS prohibited CCW, the MoSC agreeed but stated it didn't forbid CCW with permit and we got Permitted CCW in Mo. Prior to 2003 it was illegal to carry a firearm concealed, because of the language removed.

As to the ruling it looks like the MoSC just told all those who thought Amend. 5 would give us Constitutional Carry, that the State still has the power to regulate CCW and apparently the the power to regulate the right to bear arms.

Wow, another win.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,964
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Uh, it was. The language of the statue did make it illegal to carry concealed. The Legislature passed a conceal carry law, the antis sued saying the MoRS prohibited CCW, the MoSC agreeed but stated it didn't forbid CCW with permit and we got Permitted CCW in Mo. Prior to 2003 it was illegal to carry a firearm concealed, because of the language removed.

As to the ruling it looks like the MoSC just told all those who thought Amend. 5 would give us Constitutional Carry, that the State still has the power to regulate CCW and apparently the the power to regulate the right to bear arms.

Wow, another win.

18243390-smiley-vector-illustration--puzzled-face.jpg
 

Renegadez

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Lees Summit
Uh, it was. The language of the statue did make it illegal to carry concealed. The Legislature passed a conceal carry law, the antis sued saying the MoRS prohibited CCW, the MoSC agreeed but stated it didn't forbid CCW with permit and we got Permitted CCW in Mo. Prior to 2003 it was illegal to carry a firearm concealed, because of the language removed.

As to the ruling it looks like the MoSC just told all those who thought Amend. 5 would give us Constitutional Carry, that the State still has the power to regulate CCW and apparently the the power to regulate the right to bear arms.

Wow, another win.

Savage are you saying that is would still be illegal to OC even if you have a CCW?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Savage are you saying that is would still be illegal to OC even if you have a CCW?
He seems to be.

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.
Carry a gun without any prior restraint.

The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable.
Can't be taken away/infringed.

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.
State cannot infringe and as such must defend infringements by local yokels.

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.
not relevant here.


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).
The old language used "shall not justify." Which means that a citizen could not claim that CC was allowed (constitutional carry). Nothing more than codifying a revenue stream for sheriffs...follow the money.
 
Top