Some are now arguing in the courts that the Concealed Weapons law passed a month ago violated the Missouri state constitution. That a constitutional ammendment was necessary as opposed to just legislation.
From the Missouri State Constitution:
The revised, 1875 version
That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.
The latest, 1945 version
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
Proponents of the legislation argue semantically, while this says the right to bear arms doesn’t inherently justify concealed weapons, the constitution doesn’t inherently prohibit the legislation.
I think this hinges on the definition of the word ‘justify’, which is a slightly more complicated word than the word, ‘is.’ But not by much. It may also hinge on the definition of the word “this”.