Thursday, July 02, 2015

MO: State Supreme Court Upholds Strong Right to Arms Amendment

The Missouri State Supreme Court has upheld Amendment 5, which provides increased protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the State.  From
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, a Democrat running for governor in 2016, has stuck by Amendment 5 as well -- despite heat he has taken from fellow Democrats, including St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce.

In her own statement, Joyce said her office was closely reviewing the Supreme Court's decision.

"We remain very hopeful that we will retain our abilities to hold gun offenders accountable to ensure the safety of all citizens in the City of St. Louis," she said.

Koster reaffirmed his support shortly after the state Supreme Court announced its decision: “The court’s decision recognizes the common-sense belief of Missourians that strong support of the Second Amendment and strong support of law enforcement need not be in conflict in our state. I am grateful for the Court’s wisdom in this matter.”

Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey also lauded the court's action.

This was not a surprising decision. The lawsuit was a desperate attempt to thwart the will of the electorate. It seems likely that the amendment will result in Missouri becoming a "constitutional carry" state as a result, joining Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Arkansas, Wyoming, Vermont, and very likely Maine, where a bill is awaiting Governor Le Page's signature to become law.

All the "blood in the streets" predictions have proved wrong in those states.

 ©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

I think I need to be brought up to speed on this story. It says amendment 5, is this an amendment to the states constitution? If it is an amendment to the states constitution, Where in the hell does the court get the authority to make a ruling as to its constitutionality? if it is in the states constitution it has to be constitutional and thereby the court has to uphold it because it is the will of the people and the people are above the courts authority. What is the problem here, do people not understand what a constitution is? Can they not read an oath of office? Judges have no authority to rule on anything that amends the state constitution, once an amendment is passed it is constitutional. and a judges is required to uphold and enforce it. He does not have to like but he does have to uphold it and enforce it or leave office or be impeached. an amendment is completely different than a law or an act. A constitutional amendment is constitution as soon as it is passed by the vote of the people. You can not challenge the validity of the constitution, it is the constitution and the source of the judges authority. the only way to remove an amendment from the constitution is to repeal it by the same voting process that added it. Only the United States Supreme court can rule on a state constitutional amendment and the only thing it can use is if the amendment conflicts with the written words in the federal constitution.

Dean Weingarten said...

The lawsuit challenged the process of how the amendment was passed.