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.

State v. Wilforth (Mo. 1881) was decided under this same Missouri Constitution provision. The Court held that a ban on concealed carry was constitutional. The exact language used suggests that the legislature was within its discretion in passing a ban. There is nothing that directly claims that the provision in question required a ban on concealed carry--only that "but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons" was intended to give the legislature authority to pass a ban on concealed carry as they saw fit.

State v. Shelby (Mo. 1886) clearly grants legislative discretion in what laws may be passed to regulate not only concealed carry, but even open carry when intoxicated or in certain places. While not explicit that the "justify the practice" clause allowed the legislature to legalize concealed carry, it's hard to read the
text of this decision's comments and not come to that conclusion.

The right of the legislature to prohibit the wearing of concealed weapons under state constitutions, in many respects like our own, is now generally conceded. Indeed, our constitution, in express terms, says that it is not intended thereby to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons. The portions of the act which make it an offence for any one to carry concealed upon his person a dangerous or deadly weapon , is clearly within the legitimate domain of legislative power.

State v. Keet (Mo. 1916) is a bit on point to the question. Apparently, the Missouri legislature had at times provided certain exceptions to the general ban on concealed carry.

The provision exempting those who carried a weapon in self-defense from the penalty of the law originated in Revised Statutes 1879, � 1275. That provision was expressly repealed by the act of April 28, 1909 (Laws of 1909, p. 452), and has never been re-enacted.

Clearly, the Missouri legislature had the authority to allow concealed carry under some conditions, and the Keet decision doesn't dispute that they had that authority.

Lots of states in the 19th century amended their state constitution right to keep and bear arms clauses to specify that the state had authority to regulate the manner in which arms may be born, to give authority to the legislature to ban concealed carry, especially because of the uncertainties associated with Bliss v. Commonwealth (Ky. 1822). (That's a very slow document to load--it's an image, not text.) Kentucky's arms provision of 1891 includes "subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." The 1850 arms provision was, "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." No one has seriously argued that Kentucky's similar provision meant that the state lacked authority to license concealed carry. You can check here for a pretty complete list of state constitutional provisions.

I would also point out that while many late 19th century decisions by other state supreme courts upheld concealed carry bans, sometimes based on the presence of a exception for concealed carry like the Missouri Constitution has, and sometimes not, most of these bans included exemptions for travelers. The Missouri statute that previously banned concealed carry exempted peace officers. Does this mean that the previous statute is also unconstitutional? Of course not.

the injunction against the Missouri concealed weapon permit law

Reply via email to