Judge stops new Missouri concealed weapons law, was to be effective today

Here's the passage from the Missouri Constitution that the judge
cited in the ruling:

"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"

Pro concealed weapons types are arguing that this language doesn't
mean that concealed weapons are forever outlawed, and that the new
law is fine and dandy. Between them and the corporate media, they
say that the State Supreme Court will overturn this ruling.

The language seems cut & dried, yet the heat packers act like this
isn't even a bump in the road.

How can Missouri have a concealed weapons law at all with what the
Constitution says?

I'm sure this judge lives in some gated community and does not have to worry about crime at all. I feel bad for all of Missouri's abortion providers who cannot carry a firearm now to protect themselves from religious fundamentalist wackos.

circa 1855?

Where'd you get the time machine?

the peopel of Missouri voted against concelaed weapons. twice I beleive.. Didn't the senate have to vote then among themselves to allow it anyway?

Oh well, it's a stupid law anyway. criminals with guns wil just shoo tyou on the presumption you have a gun now..and then steal your gun.

Maybe I should move out of Missouri? More Guns sure as hell never made me feel safer. And as a matter of fact, I live in anything BUT a wealthy gated community.

I know some areas that aren't going to be to peachy tomorrow!
Did you here AB isn't going to donate or in any way support Holden b/c of him being against the conceal/carry law?

in the first place.

Remember the officer/state senator that went back to MO illegally from Gitmo?

and, as such, is meaningless.

"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"

So.... that leaves to be answered... what DOES justify the wearing of concealed weapons in MO? Who decides that? Courts? Citizens? And wouldn't any such decision be required to be an Amendment to the MO state Constitution?

What constitutes a "weapon"? Is it only firearms, or can I no longer conceal my nightstick?

Mace or pepperspray could be considered a 'weapon'. Does this means MO citizens can't carry pepper spray?

My opinion: this clause is far too vague.

He's quote as saying "the plain meaning of the constitutional
provision could be understood by a ten-year-old."

I'm sure that's true. I'm also sure that if the 10-y.o. was smart enough, s/he'd come to a different conclusion than that judge did, because the judge is wrong.

As you quote it, the actual language is:

"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"

Let's strip off the garnish a bit:

The right of every citizen to keep arms shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify concealed weapons

In other words, the Constitution guarantees your right to own a weapon, but it does not include in that guarantee the right to conceal the weapon. You don't get the right to conceal 'for free', in other words. It doesn't come to you via the Constitution, as ownership does.

But that's all that says. It doesn't say that you can't get that right through operation of ordinary law. It only says you don't get it automatically from the Constitution itself.

the Missouri Supreme Court will overturn this judge.

Not being a legal scholar, what about the first part of the passage, that the defense of home, person, property as well as militia duty does not justify concealed weapons?

Would concealed weapons laws have to provide a different justification if the constitution says these reasons aren't good enough?

No, because it's not really saying that those reasons aren't good enough to create a right to conceal, but rather that they're not good enough to create a Constitutional right to conceal. It's saying that to create any right to conceal requires a separate lawmaking. The Constitution only creates the right to own.