Members of the legislative and judiciary system don’t always share the views of their constituents. In fact, it’s probably safe to say these days that it’s a rare occurrence for people in government to accurately represent the views the citizens they supposedly serve.
At least that’s certainly the case in Missouri, where a gang of anti-gun “activists judges” just issued a ruling that stands in direct opposition to the Second Amendment and the opinions of the good people of their state.
Freedom Center of Missouri has the details:
Missouri Supreme Court Defies Voters, Rules Amendment 5 “Worked No Substantial Change” in Missouri Constitution
Mexico, Missouri—By a 5-2 margin, a majority of the Missouri Supreme Court’s judges have effectively nullified a state constitutional amendment approved by more than sixty percent of voters in 2014. Amendment 5, as the measure was known, made major textual changes to Article I, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution and was designed to establish the most stringent constitutional protections possible for citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. But in a trio of opinions authored by Judge Laura Denvir Stith and handed down today that reject decades of rulings about how courts must interpret changes to legal provisions, the Missouri Supreme Court has concluded that the amendment “worked no substantial change in Article I, section 23.”
Judges Mary Russell, Paul Wilson, Zel Fischer, and Chief Justice Patricia Breckenridge each joined the majority opinion.
“The words of the Missouri Constitution are the most essential, most fundamental tool the people have to define—and limit—the powers of their government,” said Dave Roland, director of litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri, who argued one of the three cases before the Missouri Supreme Court. “The people used the most powerful language available to them to demand protection for their rights to defend themselves using firearms; the majority opinion openly defies the people’s authority to protect this right or any other constitutional right.”
In a stinging dissent, Judge Richard Teitelman highlighted the flaws in the majority’s logic, saying, “The principal opinion asserts ‘context matters’ when courts apply strict scrutiny. If context matters, then this Court should consider the fact that the list of nonviolent and impersonal regulatory offenses is a long one and it grows every year. … [The felon-in-possession statute] strips the delinquent taxpayer of his or her constitutional rights on the same terms as a murderer. I fail to see how restricting the constitutional rights of those who bet on horse races or divulge the names and addresses of donors to a state-established trust fund is narrowly tailored to the prevention of gun violence.”
If members of our government are willing to blatantly defy the express wishes of the voters, then who knows what they’re ultimately capable of?
Give us your thoughts in the comments.