Saturday, October 11, 2003

I am oppossed to any law that requires you to obtain a permit & pay a fee merely to own, possess or carry a weapon.

That being said, Missouri's new concealed carry law is being challenged as conflicting with the state constitution. How you may ask? The proponents of victim disarmament assert that since the Missouri constitution says that concealed carry is not justified by its provision concerning the Right to Arms it is therefore unconstitutional for the legislature to make it permissable by law. Further a judge has issued a temporary injunction of the new concealed carry law until the Missouri Supreme Court can rule on the case.

"Attorneys for plaintiffs seeking to stop the concealed-weapons law from taking effect Saturday argued that the law is unconstitutional. They said it violates a 128-year-old clause in the Missouri Constitution, imposes a new requirement on counties without providing funding and contains vague language.
The lawyers, Burton Newman and Richard Miller, also claimed the Legislature overstepped its police powers to secure the general peace and safety of Missourians and usurped the power of the people by passing a law similar to one voters rejected in an April 1999 referendum.
...They cited a section of the Bill of Rights from the 1945 Missouri Constitution declaring 'that the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property ... shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Even if I were to fall for the idea that carrying concealed is somehow different than carrying openly & should be restricted I could not buy the argument that the Missouri constitution prohibits it outright. It merely says that the constitution does not recognize that Right. It does not prohibit Missouri law from establishing a permit system, or even a non permit (i.e. Vermont style) system.

Seems like they're getting desperate. Problem is, this might work for them.

No comments: