Missouri AG helping the second amendment cause

Missouri AG helping the second amendment cause

This is a discussion on Missouri AG helping the second amendment cause within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; http://www.infozine.com/news/stories...iew/sid/25944/ Missouri AG to Join Attorneys General on U.S. Supreme Court Brief in Support of Second Amendment Rights NationalAttorney General Jay Nixon announced that he ...

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Missouri AG helping the second amendment cause

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array ibez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    255

    Thumbs up Missouri AG helping the second amendment cause

    http://www.infozine.com/news/stories...iew/sid/25944/

    Missouri AG to Join Attorneys General on U.S. Supreme Court Brief in Support of Second Amendment Rights

    NationalAttorney General Jay Nixon announced that he will work with attorneys general from other states to file a brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of an individual's right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Jefferson City, MO - infoZine - The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s gun control laws. Those laws essentially ban private handgun ownership and require that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and broken down or fitted with a trigger lock. When the Supreme Court takes a case, it allows interested parties not directly involved to file amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs.

    "This case represents the first time in nearly 70 years that the Court will directly examine the Second Amendment," Nixon said. "We have an opportunity here to get a court decision solidifying what most Americans already believe: that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms."

    Nixon noted that not all rights are absolute, and that he supports Missouri's laws, including those that prevent criminals from obtaining handguns and enhance criminal penalties for crimes committed using deadly weapons.

    Nixon will be working with his colleagues in other states to present the Court with historical and legal analysis supporting the position that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

    "I believe our Founders intended the Second Amendment to extend to all law-abiding citizens, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to resolve this debate," Nixon said.

    The case before the Supreme Court is District of Columbia v. Heller, Case No. 07-290. The Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the spring and issue a decision before June 30, 2008.

    In 2004, Nixon successfully defended Missouri's concealed carry law before the Missouri Supreme Court, establishing the Missouri General Assembly's power to permit concealed weapons in Missouri.


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array cmidkiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    835
    It's nice to see Mr. Nixon coming out publicly in favor of the individual rights view. Historically, he hasn't been a big supporter.
    Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. It's worth it.

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,045
    Mr. Nixon...

    We need MORE Mr. Nixon's
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Nixon isn't a supporter of CCW, but he is a supporter of the law and the Constitution. That means all the amendments. The man has grit, despite his personal feelings, he acknowledged CCW went into effect in Missouri making it Law. He went to works for the people. I have the highest respect for the man.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array Ti Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Under Cover
    Posts
    2,035
    Um, yea, he is just doing whatever he thinks he needs to so he can have a better chance at becoming Governor. Although, I like that he is doing what he is doing, I just wish he was sincere and it didn't take the voters of the ccw community to quietly let him know what we would like to see. Amazingly it worked.

    This is basically the same thing we did with reciprocity. A small group started contacting the AG about it and were completely ignored by the AG. We made a mass phone and email campaign flooding his office about it and the next thing you know the assistant AG is on the reciprocity issue and we now thanks to his help (the assistant AG) we have 34 states that recognize a Missouri ccw permit (including missouri).

    Although, this is great, there is a story behind it.


    Ti
    Train and train hard, you might not get a second chance to make a first impression!

    I vote for Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President.....Not!

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,286
    So did Mike Cox, I have more on the multi page opinion he wrote this for now.

    Second-Amendment Showdown
    By MIKE COX
    November 23, 2007; Page A13
    Wall Street Journal

    The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will affect millions of Americans and could also have an impact on the 2008 elections. That case, Parker v. D.C., should settle the decades-old argument whether the right 'to keep and bear arms' of the Constitution's Second Amendment is an individual right -- that all Americans enjoy -- or only a collective right that states may regulate freely. Legal, historical and even empirical reasons all command a decision that recognizes the Second Amendment guarantee as an individual right.

    The amendment reads: '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.' If 'the right of the people' to keep and bear arms was merely an incident of, or subordinate to, a governmental (i.e., a collective) purpose -- that of ensuring an efficient or 'well regulated' militia -- it would be logical to conclude, as does the District of Columbia -- that government can outlaw the individual ownership of guns. But this collective interpretation is incorrect.

    To analyze what 'the right of the people' means, look elsewhere within the Bill of Rights for guidance. The First Amendment speaks of 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . .' No one seriously argues that the right to assemble or associate with your fellow citizens is predicated on the number of citizens or the assent of a government. It is an individual right.

    The Fourth Amendment says, 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ' The 'people' here does not refer to a collectivity, either.

    The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Right are individual. The Third and Fifth Amendments protect individual property owners; the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments protect potential individual criminal defendants from unreasonable searches, involuntary incrimination, appearing in court without an attorney, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments.

    The Ninth Amendment protects individual rights not otherwise enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment states, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' Here, 'the people' are separate from 'the states'; thus, the Second Amendment must be about more than simply a 'state' militia when it uses the term 'the people.'

    Consider the grammar. The Second Amendment is about the right to 'keep and bear arms.' Before the conjunction 'and' there is a right to 'keep,' meaning to possess. This word would be superfluous if the Second Amendment were only about bearing arms as part of the state militia. Reading these words to restrict the right to possess arms strains common rules of composition.

    Colonial history and politics are also instructive. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to provide a political compromise between the Federalists, who favored a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a strong central government as an inherent danger to individual rights. In June 1789, then Rep. Madison introduced 12 amendments, a 'bill of rights,' to the Constitution to convince the remaining two of the original 13 colonies to ratify the document.

    Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights. As a result, Madison proposed a bill of rights that reflected, as Stanford University historian Jack Rakove notes, his belief that the 'greatest dangers to liberty would continue to arise within the states, rather than from a reconstituted national government.' Accordingly, Mr. Rakove writes that 'Madison justified all of these proposals (Bill of Rights) in terms of the protection they would extend to individual and minority rights.'

    One of the earliest scholars of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, confirmed this focus on individuals in his famous 'Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States' in 1833. 'The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms,' Story wrote, 'has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of republics, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers . . .'

    It is also important to consider the social context at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers lived in an era where there were arms in virtually every household. Most of America was rural or, even more accurately, frontier. The idea that in the 1780s the common man, living in the remote woods of the Allegheny Mountains of western Pennsylvania and Virginia, would depend on the indulgence of his individual state or colony -- not to mention the new federal government -- to possess and use arms in order to defend himself is ludicrous. From the Minutemen of Concord and Lexington to the irregulars at Yorktown, members of the militias marched into battle with privately-owned weapons.

    Lastly, consider the empirical arguments. The three D.C. ordinances at issue are of the broadest possible nature. According to the statute, a person is not legally able to own a handgun in D.C. at all and may have a long-gun -- even in one's home -- only if it is kept unloaded and disassembled (or bound with a trigger lock). The statute was passed in 1976. What have been the results?

    Illegal guns continue to be widely available in the district; criminals have easy access to guns while law-abiding citizens do not. Cathy L. Lanier, Acting Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, was quoted as follows: 'Last year [2006], more than 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C., a 13% increase over 2005.' Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before the 1976 ban, the murder rate fell to 27 from 37 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose to 35. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

    This comports with my own personal experience. In almost 14 years as prosecutor and as head of the Homicide Unit of the Wayne County (Detroit) Prosecutor's Office, I never saw anyone charged with murder who had a license to legally carry a concealed weapon. Most people who want to possess guns are law-abiding and present no threat to others. Rather than the availability of weapons, my experience is that gun violence is driven by culture, police presence (or lack of same), and failures in the supervision of parolees and probationers.

    Not only does history demonstrate that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but experience demonstrates that the broad ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia has led to precisely the opposite effect from what was intended. For legal and historical reasons, and for the safety of the residents of our nation's capital, the Supreme Court should affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    Mr. Cox is the attorney general of Michigan.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array digitalexplr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jefferson City, MO
    Posts
    914
    When I hear or read of Jay Nixon being as clearly in favor of the 2nd Amendment as Mr. Cox, I'll be more inclined to believe in his sincerity. As for now, he knows how the majority of Missourians feel and therefore is more interested in good politics than genuine personal beliefs.

  8. #8
    Ex Member Array ibez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    255
    In 2004, Nixon successfully defended Missouri's concealed carry law before the Missouri Supreme Court, establishing the Missouri General Assembly's power to permit concealed weapons in Missouri
    ???????

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array cmidkiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    835
    Quote Originally Posted by ibez View Post
    ???????
    Yeah, he did indeed defend our CCW law... with several local groups watching every move he made. He also campaigned against passing it.

    He did his job honorably, and for that I'm thankful, but pro2A? I don't think so.
    Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. It's worth it.

  10. #10
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Nixon saw our previous governor, affectionately known as “One term Bob” get his butt handed to him over a gun issue; he vetoed CCW and lost in the Dem-o-crap primary. Nixon knows if he is to has a snowball’s chance in heck of being elected governor he has to have the support of rural, gun loving, church going Demarcates to even get the nomination.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611

    Yes indeed

    Quote Originally Posted by ibez View Post
    ???????

    Yes he went to bat for us in Missouri, a Democrat for the second amendment and an outstanding Missourian.

    Also, hats off to the attorneys who also handed the opposition their hats on the way out the door, which includes the liberal St Louis Judge that made it all happen. The opposition had to forfeit some of the $250,000 up front money posted by the opposition and was distributed to the effected businesses and our legal fees due the delay in the law taking effect. The rest of the legal fees were paid by donations from fellow Missourians. The opposition had to pay Bulls Eye and others set for the permitting for loss of revenue due to their interference of the passage of the law.

    This fight was not totally based in St. Louis. The Mayor of KC , other cronies of Jackson County, the police chief of Hazelwood and if memory serves me correctly, a Sheriff in the City of St Louis to include Civil leaders in St. Louis were all involved. They were all shut down due to Nixon. It was a proud day for all us packers. Missouri showed the nation what "Show Me" meant. I qualified at Bulls Eye for my CCW permit and had to wait until it was all over to apply.

    You know the legal system. It took some time. It was a good fight !
    Last edited by P95Carry; December 12th, 2007 at 10:02 PM. Reason: separated into para's - easier to read!
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Just my .02 about Nixon. If he truly personally is against CCW and gun laws, he seems to be doing what a politician is supposed to be doing. Putting his own feelings aside and doing what his constituents want. That is what all of our politicians are supposed to be doing. More politicians should be this way. I'm sick of politicians saying what we want to hear to get elected, and then legislate their own personal agenda once they're elected.

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array Supertac45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    3,657
    Great job by the A.G. in Missouri. Our A.G., Mike Cox is great in Michigan.
    Les Baer 45
    Sig Man
    N.R.A. Patron Life Member
    M.C.R.G.O.

  14. #14
    Member Array Philbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    63

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Supertac45 View Post
    Great job by the A.G. in Missouri. Our A.G., Mike Cox is great in Michigan.
    +1 on Mike Cox...............so far, so good. If he indeed stays on this road, he can have a very long and productive political career here in Michigan, or representing us nationally. He does his homework and seems to "speak from the heart," ........can't ask much more at this point.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: ‘2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. 1st Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment in private forums
    By ShawnMoncali in forum Forum News, Feedback, Problems & Comments
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 11:54 AM
  3. Helping others...
    By Oldskoolfan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: September 14th, 2009, 08:23 AM
  4. Helping someone pick a gun.
    By ErikGr7 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 26th, 2009, 08:07 PM
  5. In a way the thugs are helping
    By HappyGunner in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 24th, 2006, 02:24 PM