Beetem hears challenges to gun rights amendment

Lawyers have until 3 p.m. today to submit final arguments in a lawsuit challenging a proposed constitutional amendment affecting Missourians' "right to bear arms."

State Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, sponsored the proposed amendment to add ammunition and accessories to the state constitutional guarantee of the "right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property."

Schaefer's proposal also would add "family" to that list of things being defended, and would make the constitutional rights "unalienable."

Gov. Jay Nixon scheduled the amendment for an Aug. 5 vote, and voters will see the issue on the ballot as Amendment 5, with the question: "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?"

Jefferson City lawyer Heidi Vollet filed the legal challenge for St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters-Baker.

Vollet told Beetem on Thursday the lawmakers' ballot language doesn't do enough to tell voters what the proposed amendment will do.

"Missouri constitutions have had a right to bear arms since 1820," she said.

In 1875, a new, post-Civil War Constitution included and expanded parts of the right to bear arms, she said, but included a new limitation against wearing concealed weapons.

That limitation remains in the 1945 Constitution used today, but lawmakers changed state law a number of years ago to allow concealed weapons. Schaefer's amendment would eliminate the phrase.

Vollet argued the ballot language doesn't tell voters that the proposed amendment removes the concealed weapons language from the Constitution.

The ballot language also doesn't tell voters that the proposed amendment would require any "restriction on these rights be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights," Vollet said.

She reminded Beetem that "strict scrutiny" is a very restrictive policy that leaves little room for lawmakers to pass or judges to approve new regulations, even if lawmakers think they are needed.

Assistant Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan told Beetem that Vollet's lawsuit acknowledges the proposed amendment adds "new rights" to the state Constitution.

"We have to start with the deference that is due the Legislature, as the drafters of the proposed legislation, and what they believed is the most important provisions of the proposal," Morgan said.

He argued lawmakers focused on two key provisions, "a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is unalienable, and second, that the government must uphold that right."

He said most voters likely "won't understand what "strict scrutiny' is, they will understand something like unalienable."

Morgan reminded Beetem that previous court rulings have said a ballot summary doesn't have to cover all the parts of the proposed law or amendment.

Lawyers also disagreed over whether Beetem has the authority to change the ballot language, if he thinks Vollet is right that the current language doesn't give voters enough information.

Beetem didn't say when he'd have a ruling in the case.