http://www.osca.state.mo.us/courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da/b14dae00e29160d186256e4600666f47?OpenDocument
>The trial court erred in declaring the concealed-carry act >unconstitutional under article I, section 23. This section states: >"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." The words of the last clause are plain >and unambiguous. Read in proper grammatical context, and giving the >words their common usage, this clause does not prohibit wearing >concealed weapons. Rather, it prohibits a person from invoking the >constitutional right to keep and bear arms as a justification for >wearing concealed weapons. The general assembly, therefore, retains >its plenary power to enact legislation regarding the use and >regulation of concealed weapons. With respect to the Hancock Amendment issue (which involves a provision against unfunded mandates) the court leaves open the possibility that this issue may be ripe later, if a county claims that the fees for the permit exceed their costs. (I may not have the exact details of this right.) _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
