http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/05/Missouri-Amendment-Gun-Ownership-An-Unalienable-Right-State-Must-Uphold


On August 5th, Missourians will vote on Amendment 5, an amendment to the state constitution which explicitly declares private gun ownership an "unalienable right" and obligates the state government to "uphold" it.

The language of Amendment 5 says "that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right."

According to The Joplin Globe, the amendment was sponsored by state senator Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia). It passed the state senate "by a 23-to-8 vote, and the state [house] by a 122-to-31 vote."
In addition to adding a new protection for the "right to bear arms," Amendment 5 safeguards ammunition and "accessories typical to the normal function of such arms."

Saint Louis attorney Chuck Hatfield "is helping lead opposition to Schaefer's amendment." Hatfield does not like that Amendment 5 calls for any future gun laws to be weighed on the basis of "strict scrutiny"--the "most rigorous... [type] of judicial review."

Hatfield worries that a "strict scrutiny analysis" could embolden "defense attorneys and public defenders" to challenge current gun control laws in Missouri.

Obviously we will be voting yes on this amendment.

Does anyone have any opinions on the other MO amendments for August 5th?

Here is a summary of them, there are five total:

http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_2014_ballot_measures

The need for CCW goes bye bye just like in Arizona if it passes right? No one should have to pay money for their rights.

Yes on Amendments 1, 5, and 9.



No on Amendment 8.



No on Amendment 7.

I'll second that motion.

No on 7 yes on the rest.

Thirded!

No on 7,yes the rest. Am I missing something,whats wrong with 8?

Thanks,I get it now. No on 7 and 8

No on 1.  SCOTUS says corporations are individuals so it would protect corporate hog farms, etc.

Yes on 5

Yes on 7.  Sales tax spreads the cost to everyone who benefits from the roads.  Not another fuel tax we'll have forever.

No on 8 for the reasons already stated.

Yes on 9.  Protects against warrantless searches of electronics, trash, etc.

That's my thinking.  I'm willing to listen to arguments.

August 5:

Amendment 1 - YES, how many acres for a farm in MO?  10-12?
Agriculture:  Guarantees farmers and ranchers the right to engage in their livelihoods, produce food for others


Amendment 5  YES
Firearms:  Establishes the right to keep and bear arms, ammunition and accessories


Amendment 7  NO, bastards have enough money...lay off more people and cut the pay.  That is what you get for spending the tax on general funds for 20 years.
Taxes:  Increases state sales and use taxes for 10 years to fund transportation projects

Amendment 8 YES - Why use general funds, let those that play the lottery pay for it.  Why not mandate that 80% of profits go to program, instead of 25%, like schools get?
Lottery:  Creates new lottery ticket with profits going toward veterans' programs

Amendment 9  YES, get a warrant.
Civil Rights:  Protects electronic data from unreasonable searches and seizures


November 4:

Amendment 2  YES
Trials:  Renders prior criminal acts admissible in court during child sexual abuse trials

Amendment 6 YES - easier to find fraud this way.
Elections:  Establishes a six-day long early voting period

Amendment 10  YES, next years budget is thrown off.
Gov't Finances:  Prohibits the governor from estimating available state revenues when making budget recommendations under certain legislative circumstances

This looks good to me

There are many who are pushing to remove all control of food from the people, including having chickens and gardens. They also want to control/tax/outlaw private wells, so that they control the water.



Michigan is the most recent example I know of, where the citizens lost the right to raise chickens, keep bees, etc.



http://www.inquisitr.com/1235774/michigan-loses-right-to-farm-this-week-a-farewell-to-backyard-chickens-and-beekeepers/



 

Just posting more links as I find them.  This will be a low turnout, compared to Nov, so we better get this thing pasted.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/missouri-voters-asked-to-restate-second-amendment-support/26866460#!bdE5lE

This,I will not vote for it.

My leanings:

#1: No. At best, this is an overreaction to the HSUS nonsense a few years ago, which was effectively nullified by our legislature anyway. I'm worried it won't benefit small farmers nearly as much as it will benefit large operations, who are more likely to take advantage of immunity from polluting our resources.

#5: Yes. I don't think I need to explain this one here

#7: No. I'm not opposed to a modest fuel tax increase if they can make the case for it, but I want to see some numbers... This stinks of a big money grab. I've heard, perhaps incorrectly, that a 1 cent sales tax would generate the same revenue as a 40 cent per gallon fuel tax would. That's a ton of money! No wonder they aren't trying for a 40 cent fuel tax, since a 1 cent sales tax sounds a lot better! I still don't like it.

#8: No. Inefficient revenue generator, reduces school funding. On principle I don't think the state should have a monopoly on gambling, anyway. If this passes, will we see an attempted new lottery fund for a different pet project every year?

#9 Yes. If the courts won't solidly affirm the intent of the 4th, I guess we'll have to do it this way... Seems painfully obvious to me that this is confirming the intent of the constitution, and it's desperately needed in our time.

I like what you're stating here with exception of Amendment 7...

I plan on voting yes on Amendment 7 because instead of increasing gas taxes, this would increase sales tax so that EVERYONE pays a portion of instead of just people who buy gas. I think we should move towards a sales tax based system for revenue…no more of this progressive tax bullshit where people who have a job and contribute to society pay for others to stay home and reap the benefits.
King Obama told us all that "we didn't build it. If you own a successful business, people use roads to get to it and buy things from you", yet the mouth pieces of the left suddenly feel otherwise:

West County Democrats oppose sales tax increase for transportation

And

Amendment would place unfair burden on lowest 20 pct. of earners

And

Sales tax is least rational solution to highway funding

Simple fact of the matter is that this shifts the burden from the producers to ALL of the consumers...everybody uses roads right? We all know that business costs get passed on to the consumer, increasing gas taxes will increase the cost of products delivered by truck...which is pretty much everything. Increasing the sales tax will mitigate that some and spread the cost out.

Just my take, obviously, you should vote as you see fit.

So, if this fails, how does it effect our 2nd Amendment???

I personally own 2 corporations.  One involved in pig farming and one involved in cattle farming, (I'll still only get one vote though).  I'm not seeing the problem here.  Corporations don't get a vote AFAIK, only individuals.

The bill sponsored by the human society a few  years ago  which was out voted in all areas of the state  except St. Louis an KC  has resulted In a decrease in dog breeders from about 1900 to about 500 in Missouri.

Senator Dan Brown claims unless 1 is passed the same will happen to all ag enterprises in Missouri.

Yes on 1.

Right now, our state courts use rational basis when looking at laws to uphold.  This is the lowest form of protection.  Even though the courts should hold fundamental rights to the highest form - strict, we have witnessed other state and federal courts give only intermediate protection and even this is in name only.  Courts often uphold laws, but say they are applying this lower test.

We are taking away the ability for Judges (right or left) from refusing to uphold this right.  Also, we are removing from the power of the legislature the ability to regulate the concealed carry or open, expect for the ability for violent felons and those that are mentally impaired from their RKBA.

So, if it fails, under our current state protection, you get rational basis review.  If you bring a second amendment challenge, you will get intermediate, but it will be rational basis in form.  Even if the United State Supreme court says this is ok and we get this passed, then our STATE courts will be forced to review state gun laws under the stricter standard.

Lets roll a hard 6 and make sure we get this passed.

Well, I'm for sure voting and trying to get everyone I know to vote on it...



What pisses me off, if the folks that won't vote on it...



I can see my dad, who is a Hunter and shoots Black power competitions, semi-gun guy not getting off his ass and voting.  



You don't have to be a gun guy, have a gun or be comfortable owning a gun, but you should want to protect your rights, so that if you or others ever want/need one, you'll maintain the right.



Far to many people are too Stupid or at least to lazy to stand up.



 

This will be a low turnout election anyway.
Odds are pretty good that more people who support this will come out to vote for it, than against it.

ETA -  you might be surprised at the number of cops I'm hearing talk positively about this. Meaning they will be voting FOR it instead of against it.

I still am uncertain as to whether or not this will completely wipe out the concept of CCW in Missouri and have us be just like Arizona.

Just bumping this back up to get it fresh in peoples head for next week.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/

The way I stand right now
1 - NO - I think this will only hurt small farmers and make way for BIG corporate farming.  
5 - Yes
7 - Still undecided, but leaning NO
8 - NO - I am a Vet, and would love to see more money go to Veteran organizations but I do not think the lottery is it.
9 - YES - Electronic communications should have the same protection as any piece of paper from illegal search and seizure.

Phil

Phil,

1...How many corporate farms are there in Missouri? I don't know, I'm asking. But the small/family farm guys I've spoken to seem to want this amendment, and they make their living on it, so I'm willing to defer to their judgement.
7...I sorta feel the same way, but IMO, the biggest reason to go yes on it is that it effects everyone and could easily be the stepping stone to getting over to a sales tax based system as opposed to an income tax based system. Sales tax hits everyone, not just the evil people who can afford cars...even the hood rats who cant afford nuthin, but got new Iphones, Direct TV satellite dishes outside their apartment, and flatscreens in every room.....I pay enough in gas taxes, so they can stay home and use the same roads I do to get to work. They can foot some of the bill to pay for improvements to roads they use too. If they weren't using the roads at all, then I'd be fine with them not paying for the upkeep, but they do.
8..I'm prior Marine and served in Mogadishu while in the infantry, and I like the idea of using a lottery to raise more money for veterans., People who want to contribute can continue to do so on their own by making donations and playing the lottery. Liberals don't care about veterans anyway and wont give them an increase in benefits, healthcare etc because they generally tend to be conservative....Jay Nixon is liberal. Period. Get the lottery thing in place and get more money moving towards veterans and continue to work on getting more through other means. Its far from ideal, but we haven't been in an ideal world for a very long time.

5 & 9 are no brainers in mind. Voting against them means you are for a bigger government and less rights for the people.

I'm now confused on how to vote on 1...I want to support the small farmers how should I vote to best accomplish that?





Maxxll has given be a completely different perspective on voting for 7, but I'm still not sure I can give a yes vote yet.





5 seems like such a no brainer, but I am concerned about how it has the potential to allow quote/unquote "non violent" felons to keep or get back their guns rights. I've read a few different opinion pieces on it, but can anyone provide some info about this aspect of the law? Help me put that concern away so I can give a confident yes vote?





8 seems like a yes to me, its better than nothing new for vets and its not more taxes





9 seems more symbolic and redundant than actually needed. SCOTUS just handed down a ruling last month making this amendment case law nation wide. Not saying I wont vote yes, just seems redundant at this point.

 

While I understand your "concerns" regarding 5, no one can say with certainty how it would impact the 'non violent felon' populace until a case went through the court system challenging the denial of their rights based on the new amendment.

That being said here is my opinion.  Your concern indicates you feel that the state has the authority to remove and by default give an inalienable right at will based on an individuals behavior.  In my opinion it would not be a bad thing if 'non violent felons' were free to exercise their rights again once their punishment was completed.  While I get that we have all been trained to think that people that have done something they shouldn't have, don't have certain rights; how can we then argue that the right to bear arms is inalienable and in the next breath say "take that mans God given rights away"?  

To me, that is contradictory and I feel that if your not in prison, on probation or parole, committed etc, that your rights should be in full effect.  Again though, there is now way to know how this would or would not impact these items unless and until there is a court challenge to a prohibition.

As far as Amendment 1 goes, the small farmers already have the right to farm.  By amending the constitution you are creating a very general broad approval for anything people or corporations call a farm.  Corporations will take advantage of any opportunity they have, and they will have the financial means and legal team to back them up.  I just see small farmers getting pushed around or just can afford to keep up.  Just a personal opinion of how I see things going.  Unfortunately I think some people are for it just because the title "Right to Farm" sounds fantastic and tugs at the Good Ole' heart strings of MO residents.  The only people I see this an advantage for is Big Money farms.  And to answer your question, I do not know how many corporate farms there are in MO.

On Number 7, I feel the same as you.  I like the idea of spreading the cost out to everyone, and not allowing a gas tax that does not get spread out to nearly as many people.  Just not sure that I trust them to do what is supposed to be done with the money.  I am still undecided on it...

Number 8 - I too am a Marine, and very big supporter of anything that can help vets out.  The lottery has been shown over and over again to be an inefficient way of making money, in the respect that very little of each dollar actually goes to education or what ever cause.  That being said, some extra money is better than no extra money, so I see that argument too.  My personal belief is that this amendment will only take money away from education, and raise very little for veterans.  The money for State Veterans homes should come from the State budget.  Not just guessing on how much money we can raise by selling lottery tickets.  Plus I just do not like the idea of adding a amendment to the constitution for a lottery.

I like being able to have a civil political discussion.  Getting perspective from others is a good thing.  

Phil

My concern is in the definition of non-violent felony. A tax cheat or bad check writer? yeah I can probably get behind restoring their 2A rights after their punishment and debt to society has been repaid. Drug traffickers and deals, chronic DWI offenders, felony thefts, child endangers/victimizers? Those types of folks have demonstrated they are either untrustworthy and dishonorable beyond reproach or lack any meaningful ability to exercise self control and good judgement. But those crimes are classified as non-violent. Call me anti-2A or an asshole or whatever, but I don't want people like that owning, much less shooting, guns anywhere near me.



Based on the language, I'm still planning to vote yes on 5, but I still hold my concerns about felons having guns.





 

I wondered who was paying for the vote yes on amendment 7 the 5 Billion dollar road tax TV ads and the direct mail flyers I get every day. Looks like the people who are who will be paid that money are investing in their future business now.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/money-flowing-to-missouri-transportation-tax-group/article_5905897d-aa61-55da-814a-fa1faf4c8a6a.html

http://mobikefed.org/2014/07/mobikefed-endorses-amendment-7

As an avid cyclist, I think these are very good changes. I'm still leaning no because of the sheer size of the bill, but now I see the sense in using a sales tax to fund "transportation", including cycling and pedestrians. That's better than using fuel tax for sidewalks and bike trails.

Aww, hell. It occurs to me that I never moved my voter registration from Cass to Jackson.

Do I try to re-register after the deadline, or do I just drive down to Cass?

I'm curious to know the answer to this question also.

Arizona was done via statue, we will do it with the new constitutional amendment.

hmmm, makes me wonder...



I have a friend who got into trouble like 20+ years ago...  Not sure of his exact charge, but I know it was reduced and he received a SIS...  He can buy ARs and pistols all day, never even gets delayed, but he can not get his CCW....



Under this new change, would he and others who can legally purchase a firearm, now carry???



 

These issues will most likely need a court challenge to see how the amendment will affect them.  

Depending on your friends status, he CAN carry on a out of state permit.  I have assisted others in similar situations and Florida will issue to someone with a SIS if it is 10+ years old and the person has not gotten in trouble since.

Eta:  Looks like it only has to be three years since completing probation etc..
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html

Non-passage of Amendment 1 will hurt the small farmers even worse than the big farmers.  As urban sprawl continues to creep into farm country and bring new city oriented regulations with it, the small farmers will be unable to fight back or adapt to the new regulations.  We have the EPA on the verge of dictating every water stream in the country.  If a small farmer wants to build a pond and gets blocked for whatever reason, it will be harder for them to put in an approved system whereas a big guy will just drill a well or jump the hoops required to get it done.  When the small farmer gets a nuisance complaint because someone don't like the smell of newly cut hay or his plowing the field is creating too much dust, he'll go broke defending himself whereas the big guys will be the only ones left with resources to stay in business.  

There was already a stat listed on page 1 about dog breeders in MO and what happened to the numbers after animal rights outsiders got restrictive legislation passed.  Out of all the breeders that left, do you think it was the real professionals that got booted or the little guys that couldn't afford to bring their facilities up to snuff?  For any of the small guys that are extremely successful at it and could afford to upgrade facilities, no matter how good they are they are now limited to how big their operation can grow due to new regulations.

To answer the question as to how many corps are farming in MO, I know probably 100 farmers personally and I can assure you that at least 60-70 percent are being run as a corporation.  Now how do you define a corporation?  Are you drawing the line at whether the corporation is farming 100 acres or 500 acres or 5,000 acres or 50,000 acres or some other arbitrary number?  If I start out small and happen to work hardest and be the best farmer in the area and want to grow my business, at what point do you think it's alright to tie my hands?

All farmers big and small have to deal with the same type of people that any shooting range has to deal with when city folks start moving into the area and complaining about the noise or potentially stray bullets regardless of whether there is any real danger present or not.  Where you may have the right to shoot now, I can almost guarantee that those places will need to be fought for non stop and in a big way if we don't have protections in place to protect our rights from gun haters.

Here's how I plan to vote:

Yes on Amendments 1, 5, and 9. all of these amendments help protect the rights of individuals.

No on Amendment 8.  already pay enough taxes

No on Amendment 7.   no doubt in my mind the bureaucracy running the program would end up with most of the funds just to run the program

The small farmer is already protected from nuisance suits under Chapter 537, Section 537.295.  Even if the new amendment is passed farmers can still be taken to court and would still incur costs associated with them.  Trust me, I think that these types of suits are bullshit, that someone want to get away from the city crazies and then move out to the country, but then wants to change everything to suit them.  Amendment 1 will do nothing to stop that though.  

When I say Corporate farming I am not talking about someone that grows their business and then incorporates (that is still a family farm).  I am talking about huge companies that only care about the bottom line, with decisions being made about thousands and thousands of acres by accountants and lawyers vs being made by a farmer.  They only care about competing with  other large corporate Ag for who can become the worlds leader in crop abc or xyz.  They do not care about protecting the land so that it can continue to produce crops, they will just engineer some way for it to produce some sort of sale-able object.  They do not care about protecting the livestock so that they produce good offspring or a good meat for the butcher shop.

Plus just the fact that you would be protecting a single type of business in the constitution is a scary road to travel on.  Protection can have legislation written for it (as we have lots of protection for farmers right now), but we do not need to have it is an amendment to the state constitution.

Phil

I read an interesting explanation from a site administrator of another MO gun board.  (Probably need to register to view it.)

http://www.missouricarry.com/forums/showpost.php?p=493815&postcount=9

My last boss and good friend apparently got into some trouble when he was younger as well and was able to go the Florida route...  



A month or so ago, I advised the first friend I was talking about that he could probably go that route as well, but working sun up to sun down, he's never had the time...



 

"No" on 5 - I wouldn't trust some of you retards with a potato gun.

Does anyone know if we can vote  via absentee ballot in the election on August 5th?  I'm going to be on a trip unfortunately.

It's too late to request an absentee ballot by mail. You can vote by absentee in the office of your local election authority until 5:00pm Monday.


I'm leaving out of town today as well, but will be stopping by Harrisonville on the way to cast my absentee vote.

Bassgasm, I was going to say plan on driving down to your old polling location or Clerk's Office. But then I read this and it doesn't look good for you.
3. What should I do about my registration if I move, or change my name?
Did you move after July 9th?

Maybe others can weigh in on this, hopefully I'm missing some exception.

As far as my voting, I'm glad to have read all your opinions presented here. I'm still washy on 1 and 7.

The Ag amendment seems rather broad. Guarantee the right to engage in bad practices even? Really, I just don't see this amendment guaranteeing much. The right to farm, ranch, or raise my own food is still subject to local government. Hopefully "shall not be infringed" inspires supporters to vote yes on 5 though!

The Trans amendment, that's a lot of money and surely a sizable chunk of it is going to be wasted. I hate poor roads, but there's already quite a bit of road and bridge work being done this summer around my AO. Most aren't too bad. On the other hand, bicycle-haters will lose one accusation and the Katy Trail might finally be contiguous KC-to-STL. If it passes, and I don't think it will, every road better be like riding on glass.

I saw a billboard on I70 yesterday while coming home from the Lake of The Ozarks that read, "want a third lane on 70? Then vote yes on 7."

I'm a no vote but out of curiosity, has anyone heard any "promises" regarding I70?  Some time ago there was some talk about a dedicated truck lane but I haven't heard squat in a while.

Awesome, thanks for the info! I'm headed to the clerks office now!

ETA: Post 1776

You're welcome, glad to hear it was in time for you to still cast your ballot. Admirable use of post 1776 is noted as well.

This is the first time I actually voted by absentee. They asked for my voter registration card, which I had. When they were copying my address they asked if it was correct. Afterwords you sign truthful or else perjury. With that, and what I read from FAQ, doesn't look good if moved before and not registered in new election jurisdiction before deadline.

I think it's bullshit they put Constitutional amendments on a primary election day.  Low turn out means special interest control the outcome.  Just hope the "right" SI are getting their way this time..

I'm voting yes on freedom and NO on any taxes or gov run programs (sales tax, lottery).

For 1, I'm torn, but the same ones funding the big No push are enviro-nazis that are using current laws to harass farmers.  These are the same assholes who cry "It's the corporations, man".....which is exactly what the ads are saying.  I don't trust them.  Even if "corporations" will benefit, I have believe in capitalism.

If I could not say a clear 'yes' on an amendment I voted against it.  I do beleive we need farm law reform but do NOT feel an amendment will fix the issue.  I also believe that just as much lottery money would go to vets as it does to my local district ($0) so that got a No as well.

Kujoe, enjoy my late-night chatter while you can!