When the legislature writes a law that is not clear, lawyers will argue what the legislature intended the law to mean. But legislative intent is irrelevant if the law is clear in the first place.
Missouri recently amended its constitution to strengthen gun rights. I’ve copy/pasted the language below.
——That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.——-
Or in short, the legislature can not restrict gun rights with 2 exceptions: 1) violent felons and 2) crazy people.
It seems that prosecutors don’t like nonviolent felons having guns. They are arguing that the legislature never intended to allow nonviolent felons to have guns. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Who cares about intent? Actions speak louder than intentions. And the people acted by voting this amendment to be the law of the land. Missouri prosecutors need to respect the clear language of our state constitution.
Ultimately our state supreme court will decide this issue. And I hope they rule like the judge in the below case.