zekester
Regular Member
Follow along..
Section 4 of the Missouri Constitution;
Independence of Missouri—submission of certain amendments to Constitution of the United States.—That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States;
2ND AMENDMENT…AS APPROVED BY CONGRESS;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No where does it say anything about concealed or open carry.
Section 4 of Missouri, clearly states that it "subject to the Constitution of the United States".
Now section 23 of the Missouri Constitution;
Section 23. Right to keep and bear arms—exception.—That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
Thus Section 4 makes “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” null and void, because Missouri is subject to the Constitution of the United States, which there is no mention of concealed weapons. Therefore, permits are in fact unconstitutional. This is even more evident if you take in account McDonald vs. Chicago which “affirmed” that the 2nd Amendment, "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
So...Missouri has to follow its own constitution, Section 4, and subject it self to the Constitution of the United States and accept McDonald vs. Chicago as an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment as it "applies to the states" and strike down the "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons", which in turn wipes out the statute that allowed CCW.
YEAH!!!!!! Constitutional Carry!!!!
Maybe I am grasping for straws….but looks pretty clear to me.
Well...clear as mud!! LOL!!
Section 4 of the Missouri Constitution;
Independence of Missouri—submission of certain amendments to Constitution of the United States.—That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States;
2ND AMENDMENT…AS APPROVED BY CONGRESS;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No where does it say anything about concealed or open carry.
Section 4 of Missouri, clearly states that it "subject to the Constitution of the United States".
Now section 23 of the Missouri Constitution;
Section 23. Right to keep and bear arms—exception.—That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
Thus Section 4 makes “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” null and void, because Missouri is subject to the Constitution of the United States, which there is no mention of concealed weapons. Therefore, permits are in fact unconstitutional. This is even more evident if you take in account McDonald vs. Chicago which “affirmed” that the 2nd Amendment, "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
So...Missouri has to follow its own constitution, Section 4, and subject it self to the Constitution of the United States and accept McDonald vs. Chicago as an affirmation of the 2nd Amendment as it "applies to the states" and strike down the "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons", which in turn wipes out the statute that allowed CCW.
YEAH!!!!!! Constitutional Carry!!!!
Maybe I am grasping for straws….but looks pretty clear to me.
Well...clear as mud!! LOL!!
Last edited: