This spring, the Missouri Legislature passed a law permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons. They then overrode the governor’s veto.
One day before the law was scheduled to go into effect, a state judge blocked the law, agreeing with a complaint that the law violated the Missouri Constitution.
Here’s the relevant cite:
**Section 23. 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. **
This language was taken and modified slightly from the styate’s 1875 Constitution. Earlier versions did not say anything at all about concealed weapons.
Now, let’s play Missouri Supreme Court Justice. When this case winds up in your lap, do you interpret the section to mean
a) this section provides no specific justification to carry concealed weapons, but certainly the Legislature can make a specific law about it, or
b) the framers of the Constitution in 1875 meant, and reaffirmed in 1945, “no concealed weapons, period.”
Depending on how this suit comes out, maybe we’ll get to play U.S. Supreme Court justice later on.