From my website www.john-ross.net:
10/10 UPDATE: An anti-carry group filed a motion yesterday for a temporary injunction to hold up the implementation of Missouri's License-To-Carry law scheduled to take effect tomorrow. Their grounds were several (throw a bunch of mud and see what sticks.) Today at 4:00 PM St. Louis City judge Steve Ohmer dismissed all claims except the one stating that the carry law might be in contradiction to Missouri's Constitution. He granted the temporary injunction to stop the law from taking effect tomorrow, and set a date for arguments of October 20.
WHAT THIS MEANS: The relevant section of Missouri's state Constitution reads: "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."
Every legal scholar I've talked to says that "shall not justify" means that the legislature has the right to limit or prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons--which it always has. You cannot claim your "right to keep and bear arms" as an affirmative defense against the charge of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of the law. What the lawsuit-bringers claim, however, is that "shall not justify" means "shall not permit under any circumstances."
At issue is whether the legislature has the right, under our Constitution, to enact any statute which allows even one person to legally carry a concealed weapon. Keep in mind that for many years there have been statutes on the books which permitted some people to legally carry concealed weapons in Missouri: Police, judges, corporate security advisors, certain government agents, process servers, and anyone "engaged in a peaceable journey throughout the state."
IF the eventual ruling (probably from Missouri's Supreme Court) is that Missouri's Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing any License-To-Carry law, then it will also mean that the legislature violated the Constitution when it enacted statutes to allow police officer, judges, etc. to carry concealed. This seems ludicrous to me.* I have to believe that this will get sorted out and citizens will soon be allowed to apply to become licensed to carry.
Thus, I am still offering regular training classes and very few students of mine have cancelled.
John Ross
*Keep in mind that Missouri is the only state north of the Mason-Dixon line where slavery was ever permitted by law. Missouri was also home to Dred Scott and the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision of 1857, which ruled that free blacks were not citizens. After the Civil War, the white ruling classes in the State Legislatures in Missouri and the other former slave states had to be creative to prevent now-free blacks from exercising their rights.
The legislators passed laws that said blacks had to pass literacy tests and pay poll taxes before they could vote. Guns were trickier. Some Southern states enacted laws banning the ownership of all guns not made by Colt or Winchester, as these were quality arms whose price was sufficiently high that only white people could afford them. Missouri, with less subtlety, passed a law in 1874 that prohibited the carrying of any weapon for the purposes of self-protection, including (and I am not making this up), a slingshot. In 1875 came the Constitutional wording listed above. Over a century ago, it was a simple matter to enforce this law only on blacks, as the police and sheriffs in Missouri were all white.
This was exactly what happened, just as the legislators had intended. With blacks disarmed, the Klan had free rein. Lynchings were common here in Missouri long after the Civil War. The prohibition on carrying a weapon for protection was selectively enforced on blacks alone for a full 90 years, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. No white was ever arrested if carrying a weapon for protection was his only crime. Naturally, when an armed robber was caught, a concealed weapon violation would be added to the list of charges. A team of legal researchers in 1992 could not find a case prior to 1964 where a white man in Missouri was arrested and convicted solely on a concealed weapons charge.
10/10 UPDATE: An anti-carry group filed a motion yesterday for a temporary injunction to hold up the implementation of Missouri's License-To-Carry law scheduled to take effect tomorrow. Their grounds were several (throw a bunch of mud and see what sticks.) Today at 4:00 PM St. Louis City judge Steve Ohmer dismissed all claims except the one stating that the carry law might be in contradiction to Missouri's Constitution. He granted the temporary injunction to stop the law from taking effect tomorrow, and set a date for arguments of October 20.
WHAT THIS MEANS: The relevant section of Missouri's state Constitution reads: "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."
Every legal scholar I've talked to says that "shall not justify" means that the legislature has the right to limit or prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons--which it always has. You cannot claim your "right to keep and bear arms" as an affirmative defense against the charge of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of the law. What the lawsuit-bringers claim, however, is that "shall not justify" means "shall not permit under any circumstances."
At issue is whether the legislature has the right, under our Constitution, to enact any statute which allows even one person to legally carry a concealed weapon. Keep in mind that for many years there have been statutes on the books which permitted some people to legally carry concealed weapons in Missouri: Police, judges, corporate security advisors, certain government agents, process servers, and anyone "engaged in a peaceable journey throughout the state."
IF the eventual ruling (probably from Missouri's Supreme Court) is that Missouri's Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing any License-To-Carry law, then it will also mean that the legislature violated the Constitution when it enacted statutes to allow police officer, judges, etc. to carry concealed. This seems ludicrous to me.* I have to believe that this will get sorted out and citizens will soon be allowed to apply to become licensed to carry.
Thus, I am still offering regular training classes and very few students of mine have cancelled.
John Ross
*Keep in mind that Missouri is the only state north of the Mason-Dixon line where slavery was ever permitted by law. Missouri was also home to Dred Scott and the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision of 1857, which ruled that free blacks were not citizens. After the Civil War, the white ruling classes in the State Legislatures in Missouri and the other former slave states had to be creative to prevent now-free blacks from exercising their rights.
The legislators passed laws that said blacks had to pass literacy tests and pay poll taxes before they could vote. Guns were trickier. Some Southern states enacted laws banning the ownership of all guns not made by Colt or Winchester, as these were quality arms whose price was sufficiently high that only white people could afford them. Missouri, with less subtlety, passed a law in 1874 that prohibited the carrying of any weapon for the purposes of self-protection, including (and I am not making this up), a slingshot. In 1875 came the Constitutional wording listed above. Over a century ago, it was a simple matter to enforce this law only on blacks, as the police and sheriffs in Missouri were all white.
This was exactly what happened, just as the legislators had intended. With blacks disarmed, the Klan had free rein. Lynchings were common here in Missouri long after the Civil War. The prohibition on carrying a weapon for protection was selectively enforced on blacks alone for a full 90 years, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. No white was ever arrested if carrying a weapon for protection was his only crime. Naturally, when an armed robber was caught, a concealed weapon violation would be added to the list of charges. A team of legal researchers in 1992 could not find a case prior to 1964 where a white man in Missouri was arrested and convicted solely on a concealed weapons charge.
Republican Governor who then failed to support, as his successor in the general election, a conservative republican nominee with the result that Kansas now has a Democratic Governor. :banghead: