Missouri high court to hear nonviolent felon gun-rights case

www.kmov.com...

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Just months after Missouri voters approved stronger constitutional gun rights, the new amendment is being put to the test by a convicted drug dealer who is citing it as a reason why his former felony shouldn't disqualify him from carrying a gun.

So a few months ago, Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 5, which essentially says that restrictions on the firearm rights "shall be subject to strict scrutiny". Additionally, the amendment also says this shouldnt be used to give "convicted violent felons" their firearm rights back, along with people adjudicated mentally defective.

The stating of "convicted violent felons" is essential in this case.

The Missouri Supreme Court is to hear arguments Wednesday on whether the new constitutional provision subjecting gun-control laws to strict legal scrutiny means that Missouri can no longer bar nonviolent felons from possessing firearms.

This could be an interesting case to watch. Attorney General Chris Koster says :

"There is substantial confusion among law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and circuit courts regarding whether (the felon firearm law) may still be enforced against non-violent-felony convicts,"Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Rodewald wrote in a court brief. She added: "By addressing it now, this Court can spare police, prosecutors, and judges months of uncertainty."

I haven't really found anything on which way the courts will swing in this case, so I have no idea how this will go. I am glad that the AG pushing the courts to finally settle this to, instead of just sitting back and not saying anything.

As for my opinions - Well, I do consider myself pretty libertarian, so this shouldnt be much of a surprise. I know this has been echoed around here plenty, but "After you have served your sentence, you have paid your debt to society." (generally) However, that's only for non-violent crimes in my opinion, and also as long as the individual isnt a habitual offender. Violent crimes are a completely different story. Since the case in the article is a non-violent crime, Im hoping the court rules in favor of Merritt.

The reason our country can't get it's act together is because we continue to elect lawyers instead of economists, mathematicians,engineers,etc.
Lawyers will argue for years over the placement of a comma, drag it through courts, spend thousands and thousands of tax payer dollars and accomplish absolutely nothing (outside of inflating their own egos).
Anybody could plainly see the law is supposed to be STRICTER not more lenient, just strike out the word violent and then no felons get any guns. Simple.

Convicted drug dealers not getting guns sounds pretty reasonable to me.



Quit playing lawyerball with our money and do your jobs!!!

A 18 year old senior gets caught screwing a 14 year old freshman thats anything but a sweet and innocent virgin, has a sexual predator stamp on him for the rest of his life. Same as a rapist.
A felon can't own a gun. No exceptions.

The moral of the story is,,,,"you play you pay"

a reply to: buni11687

Since he got a felony conviction for drugs and is still/back into the drug game, I don't think it's fair to say his debt to society has been repaid. If he'd been on the straight and narrow and got popped for having a gun, that's one thing. Doesn't sound like its the case with him though. Given that he's still involved with drugs, I'm sure he does want to be able to legally have guns.

What's that line in "Liar, Liar" again? Oh yea, "quit breaking the law #hole!"

Least here in the UK if you get a 5 year or more sentence you have your gun rights removed even down to an air rifle but you've always been able to get infront of a beak and plead your case and if they're happy then you're good to go as plod can't really refuse you a license as you've just been checked over with a very fine tooth comb but i aint looked at how often the laws been used so it could be its pretty much theoretical law over here

I'm all for removing violent felons rights, but removal for growing a plant is utter bs. So it depends on the charge.