| Recent Posts | About the Author | Navigation |
|---|---|---|
|
|
David is an occasional blogger, software engineer, Nintendo fanboy, liberal, news magazine addict, voracious TiVo user, and bibliophile. He was born in St. Louis, grew up in southern Indiana, and returned to St. Louis to attend Washington University. He hasn't managed to escape yet. He's a fan of free wine tastings, too many tv shows to name, and eating out. David makes his living developing web applications used internally by his employer. He doesn't blog about work because he's heard too many stories about that causing workplace troubles. There's more on the about page. |
|
| Recent Comments | ||
|
|
||
| Recent Photos | ||
|
|
||
23 January 2004 - 9:48 am
Does anyone else think the whole issue of concealed guns in Missouri is ridiculous? I lived in a state, Indiana, that allowed citizens to carry concealed guns with no exposure to any guns, concealed or otherwise, during the twelve years I lived there. So the pro-gun lobby has a string case in my mind. But the anti-gun lobby has a much, much stronger case. First, we have the fact that three or four years ago the voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have allowed them to carry concealed weapons. This implies that the thinking in Missouri at the time was that a constitutional amendment was necessary to allow concealed weapons to be carried. This is an important fact, as we'll see in just a moment. Second, in a narrow vote, the legislature passed a bill (note: not a constitutional amendment) allowing the carrying of concealed weapons. Then, after Gov. Holden vetoed the bill, the legislature overrode his veto. However, even that action was not without controversy. A member of the legislature was inappropriately allowed to leave his active-duty military service in Cuba and return to Missouri with the express purpose of voting on this bill.
But now comes the kicker. You'll recall that conservatives first tried to to get concealed weapons in Missouri through a constitutional amendment. This is because the Missouri Constitution, specifically Article I Section 23, contains the following phrase following its affirmation of the US Constitution's second amendment: "this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." Here's an article, originally published in the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, that explains the motivations behind this clause. The money quote from Judge Thomas T. Gantt who proposed the text in question at Missouri's 1875 Constitutional Convention says that "the wearing of concealed weapons is a practice which I presume meets with the general reprobation of all thinking men. It is a practice which cannot be too severely condemned. It is a practice fraught with the most incalculable evil." Clearly, the intent behind this clause was to restrict Missouri citizens from carrying concealed guns. Jay Nixon, Missouri's Attorney General, has argued "that rather than prohibiting concealed weapons, the constitution merely states that Missourians enjoy no irrevocable constitutional right to do so. Nothing prevents the General Assembly from granting citizens the legal right to carry and conceal." This seems ridiculous. Concealed weapons are banned in Missouri until the voters choose to authorize a constitutional amendment that expressly allows them.
And I certainly won't be voting in favor of them anytime soon.
Posted by on 23 January 2004 at 9:48 AM
Comments
Don't you admire the way the legislature tries to get its way through voters, and then ignores what the voters say?
The same thing happened with gambling. It was defeated (multiple times I believe) but was put on the ballet repeatedly until it passed. Once it passed, no more referenda on turning gambling off.
I have nothing against gambling. I have a lot against a legislature that goes against the common understanding of the constitution as well as the will of the voters.
I found the details of your post interesting Dave, thanks for writing it up.
Posted by rkc on 24 January 2004 - 8:18 AM