Missouri Constitutional Amendment passes

B

btmj

New member
With most of the votes counted, Amendment 5 is passing 62% to 38%. This amendment appeared on the ballot as:

"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right? "

The actual change to the constitution is explained here
http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)

I am not sure how important this was, since Missouri already is pretty gun friendly. But since it was put on the ballot, it became a symbolic fight, and a defeat would have looked bad. Wise or not, the issue was on the ballot and we had to win... and we did.

Jim
 
D

dkangel

New member
Well it did remove the language that states the right to keep and bear arms does not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Not sure if that means we will no longer need a license or not. Who knows what the end result will be. :confused:
 
B

btmj

New member
The link shows the mark-up to the constitution... the original language, and with the new edits.
 
C

carguychris

New member
The link doesn't work for me. Is there another source? Could the text be posted here? I presume it's not copyrighted.
 
Last edited:
T

Tom Servo

Staff
Here's a direct link.

The text of the ballot was this:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?

State and local governmental entities should have no direct costs or savings from this proposal. However, the proposal’s passage will likely lead to increased litigation and criminal justice related costs. The total potential costs are unknown, but could be significant.
Click to expand...
 
C

carguychris

New member
Thanks, Tom- I don't know what the deal was with that previous link.

I find one particular aspect of the amendment really interesting...
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... shall not be questioned... The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny...
Click to expand...
The boldfaced section (emphasis mine) seems to directly lay the groundwork for legal challenges to any state or municipal legislation similar to the 94 AWB or NY Safe Act. It seems to me that the state would have to successfully argue that a ban on the possession and/or defensive use of a particular accessory does not affect "the normal function" of the arm.

Case in point: commonly-possessed AR and AK-style long guns have 30rd magazines, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and flash hiders, and one can certainly make a coherent and reasonable argument that such items contribute to "normal function", thus making it very difficult for the state to ban such items without a REALLY ironclad reason. IOW if the doodad demonstrably does something- even if its function is minor or ancillary, it makes no difference- and the doodad is normally used with the arm, the state can't arbitrarily ban the doodad. "It's scary looking!", "It only belongs on the battlefield!", or "Drug cartels like them!" likely won't cut it. :)

OK, the purple tiger-stripe camo on those new S&W M&P 15-22's may be subject to a hypothetical ban, but that's no big loss. ;)
 
Last edited:
M

motorhead0922

New member
Yea I'm thinking the removal of the CC language means they should be going constitutional carry
Click to expand...

I agree, press1280. We'll see how it plays out.

It's a good change. Missouri continues to move toward the top of 2A-friendly states.
 
C

carguychris

New member
motorhead0922 said:
Yea I'm thinking the removal of the CC language means they should be going constitutional carry
Click to expand...
I'm not so certain, although I'll admit to having limited familiarity with MO law.

In general, if a state allows lawful unlicensed OC under most circumstances, requiring a license (and accompanying fee) for CCW is not necessarily considered to infringe on the RKBA of those who choose not to get the license, because those persons can presumably OC instead.

Based on a quick search of handgunlaw.us, it appears that MO allows local preemption of OC. IMHO this provision is more vulnerable than licensed CCW. The new phrase "...state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights..." (emphasis mine) implies that the legislature and the AG have an explicit obligation to stop local infringements that don't serve a very well-justified purpose.

[EDIT TO ADD:] My interpretation of the previous "...the right... shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons..." language is that the state gov't was allowed to prohibit CCW, but was not obligated to do so.
 
Last edited:
T

Technosavant

New member
No, it doesn't mean constitutional carry.

That language in the constitution really meant nothing beyond constitutional carry wasn't assumed in the state. When the CCW permit process was made law, there were lawsuits claiming that such language actually PROHIBITED concealed carry in MO. Those lawsuits, unsurprisingly, failed miserably.

There would need to be other state laws passed before constitutional carry becomes the law of the land, and I don't really see that happening anytime soon. Basically, this amendment changes nothing... it's a symbolic victory for our side (and would have been one for the other side had it failed, but it passed by a huge margin), but that's about it. It was already not legal for municipalities to regulate anything beyond open carry.

Really, all it does it make it harder to pass state level gun control and have it not get struck down by the courts. Mind you, barring a major shift in MO politics, no state level gun control was even a remote threat to being passed.
 
P

press1280

New member
From the plain language it suggests OC and CC ought to be treated the same. The former said that CC is an exception to the right, the latter removed it. But of course, it all depends on the Missouri courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top