Clayton writes: >http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_10_05_archive.html#106592909587151429 > >The Suit Blocking Missouri's New Concealed Weapon Permit Law > >Here's an article about it. Essentially, the argument is that the >Missouri Constitution, Art. I, sec. 23, says: > 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 opponents of the new concealed weapon permit law are insisting that >"but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" means that >concealed weapons are a violation of the Constitution. Not so. > >This provision to the state constitution was added in 1875 to clarify >that the state legislature had the authority to prohibit or regulate the >carrying of concealed weapons, and that anyone who sought to justify >carrying concealed weapons under Art. I, sec. 23, was wrong. This did >not mean that concealed carry could not be made lawful by the >legislature. This isn't just my opinion. > ...
The North Carolina Constitution has a similar Section in its Article I (taken from the copy of the state constitution on the web, today): Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. which has been interpreted in the same manner. After many years of discussion, a CCW bill was passed in 1995, and amended at least one time since then, and yet we have both CCW and the constitutional section above. --henry schaffer
