Apparently MO has a new CCW law that was supposed to go into effect this week or next (sorry class I can't find a link to the new statute). Unfortunately an appeals judge issued an injunction because the bill allows for unlicensed open carry in addition to permitted Concealed Carry, or so the argument goes. Apparently there's some confusion over whether the law actually provides for unlicensed open carry according to the judge.
In any event, the judge imposed the injunction because the "Constitution doesn't protect open carry, only concealed carry....". Talk about your spin doctor. The 2nd, 4th, & 9th have all stated categorically that Concealed Carry is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment. Apparently only the right to NOT CARRY is protected by the "right to bear" arms. There's no way the right to carry open AND carry concealed are BOTH PROHIBITED by the 2nd Amendment. This is how the antis interpret the SC ruling in McDonald.
In any event, the judge imposed the injunction because the "Constitution doesn't protect open carry, only concealed carry....". Talk about your spin doctor. The 2nd, 4th, & 9th have all stated categorically that Concealed Carry is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment. Apparently only the right to NOT CARRY is protected by the "right to bear" arms. There's no way the right to carry open AND carry concealed are BOTH PROHIBITED by the 2nd Amendment. This is how the antis interpret the SC ruling in McDonald.
Last edited by a moderator: