State of Missouri v. Santonio L. McCoy
2015 Mo. LEXIS 148
| Mo. | 2015Background
- Marcus Merritt, a federal felon (1986 PCP distribution), was charged in 2013 with three counts of unlawful possession of firearms under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.070.1(1) for possessing three firearms in Nov. 2012.
- Merritt moved to dismiss those counts, arguing the felon-in-possession statute violated Missouri Constitution art. I, § 23 (right to bear arms) and art. I, § 13 (no retrospective laws); the circuit court granted the motion and dismissed with prejudice.
- The State appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court; while the appeal was pending, Missouri amended art. I, § 23 to require strict scrutiny for restrictions on the right to bear arms.
- The Court held the pre-amendment version of art. I, § 23 governs Merritt’s case (amendments apply prospectively absent explicit retroactivity).
- The Court ruled that strict scrutiny nonetheless applied to challenges arising after the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonald decision and that § 571.070.1(1) survives strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of public safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 571.070.1(1) violates Missouri art. I, § 23 (right to bear arms) | Merritt: lifetime ban on all felons is overbroad; statute lacks self-defense exception and could be limited to violent felons, temporal limits, or restoration mechanisms | State: statute furthers compelling interest in public safety by preventing felons from possessing firearms and is constitutionally permissible | Court: statute does not violate art. I, § 23; it survives strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored to compelling interests |
| Whether the 2013 amendment to art. I, § 23 applies retroactively | Merritt: amendment should apply because case was pending | State: argues prior version controls; Court need not accept State concession on retroactivity | Court: amendment applies prospectively only; prior version governs Merritt’s case |
| What level of scrutiny applies to art. I, § 23 challenges arising after McDonald | Merritt: (implicitly) argues strict scrutiny should apply | State: alternatively argued statute survives either standard; also disputed retroactivity | Court: strict scrutiny applies to challenges arising after McDonald (Dotson holding) |
| Whether the statute is narrowly tailored given alternatives and other statutes restoring rights | Merritt: legislature could have adopted narrower alternatives or provided restoration mechanisms | State: narrow tailoring does not require every conceivable alternative; statute excludes misdemeanors, pardoned/expunged felons, antiques, etc. | Court: statute is sufficiently narrowly tailored and passes strict scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- Dotson v. Kander, 464 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. banc 2015) (held strict scrutiny would have applied under Missouri constitution after McDonald and addressed amendment/ballot-summary challenge)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporated Second Amendment against the states; recognized right to bear arms as fundamental)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognized individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home; declined to specify exact level of scrutiny)
- State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. banc 2013) (procedural ruling that dismissal on pretrial constitutional grounds is appealable)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (discussion of strict scrutiny tailoring requirements)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (strict scrutiny framework and its application)
- United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (evidence that felons are more likely to commit violent crimes)
- United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (felony convictions correlate with higher risk of illegal/violent gun use)
- State v. Eberhardt, 145 So.3d 377 (La. 2014) (upheld felony-based firearm restrictions under strict scrutiny)