Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Felon Firearm Prohibition in Alpert v. State of Missouri

Introduction

In the landmark case of Alpert v. State of Missouri, 543 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. Sup. Ct. 2018), the Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, affirmed the constitutionality of Section 571.070, RSMo Supp. 2013. This statute prohibits individuals convicted of felonies from possessing firearms. Jack Alpert, a nonviolent felon with restored federal firearm rights, challenged the enforcement of this statute, arguing it violated both the Missouri Constitution and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case centered on whether Alpert's pre-enforcement declaratory judgment action was ripe for judicial determination and whether the statute indeed infringed upon his constitutional rights.

The key issues in this case involved the ripeness of Alpert's constitutional challenges, the application of strict scrutiny under the Missouri Constitution's Article I, Section 23, and the interpretation of Second Amendment protections concerning felons. The parties involved included Jack Alpert, represented by Ron Ribaudo of The Ribaudo Law Firm, and the State of Missouri, represented by Gregory M. Goodwin of the Attorney General’s Office.

Summary of the Judgment

Jack Alpert filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Missouri's Section 571.070 could not be enforced against him without violating his constitutional rights. Alpert argued that after successfully completing his felony sentences and having his federal firearm rights restored, the statute's application to him was both underinclusive and overinclusive, and not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that Alpert's pre-enforcement challenges were indeed ripe for determination. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, upholding Section 571.070 as constitutionally valid. The majority opinion emphasized that felons are categorically excluded from Second Amendment protections and that the statute withstood both Missouri and federal constitutional scrutiny. The dissenting justices argued that Alpert's case was not ripe and that his appeal should be dismissed based on procedural grounds.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced several precedents to support its decision:

Borden Co. v. Thomason, 353 S.W.2d 735 (Mo. banc 1962): Established that pre-enforcement challenges are ripe when previous lawful conduct is interrupted by a statute.
LINCOLN CREDIT CO. v. PEACH, 636 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. banc 1982): Recognized justiciable controversies when business practices are altered by new statutes.
Bldg. Owners & Managers Ass'n of Metro. St. Louis, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 341 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011): Held that changes in business regulations can render challenges ripe.
Mo. Health Care Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. of the State of Mo., 953 S.W.2d 617 (Mo. banc 1997): Defined ripeness in the context of statutory enforcement.
Planned Parenthood of Kan. v. Nixon, 220 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. banc 2007): Affirmed the use of declaratory judgment actions to resolve legal uncertainties.
State v. Clay, 481 S.W.3d 531 (Mo. banc 2016): Upheld Section 571.070.1 as a constitutional restriction against nonviolent felons' right to bear arms.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010): Recognized individual Second Amendment rights and affirmed states' authority to impose firearm restrictions on felons.

These cases collectively reinforced the court’s stance on the constitutionality of firearm restrictions for felons, emphasizing public safety and legal precedents that support categorical exclusions from constitutional protections.

Legal Reasoning

The Missouri Supreme Court applied a stringent standard of strict scrutiny to Section 571.070, aligning with Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution and Second Amendment jurisprudence. The court reasoned that:

Categorical Exclusion: Felons are categorically excluded from firearm possession rights, irrespective of the nature of their offense.
Narrow Tailoring: The statute is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling government interest of public safety by preventing felons from possessing firearms.
Ripeness: Alpert’s challenges were ripe as he faced immediate concrete restrictions due to the amendment of Section 571.070, which directly affected his ability to maintain his federal firearms license.
Precedential Consistency: Upholding the statute aligns with longstanding legal prohibitions and ensures consistency across judicial decisions.

The majority opinion dismissed Alpert's arguments regarding the underinclusiveness and overinclusiveness of the statute, asserting that the law does not require exhaustive individual assessments but rather maintains a clear and categorical prohibition that is essential for public safety.

Impact

The affirmation of Section 571.070 reinforces Missouri’s stringent firearm possession laws regarding felons. This decision has several implications:

Legal Precedent: Sets a strong precedent that pre-enforcement challenges to firearms statutes can be deemed ripe, provided there is a direct and immediate impact.
Felon Disarmament: Solidifies the legal framework preventing felons from possessing firearms, thereby potentially reducing firearm-related recidivism.
Judicial Approach: Establishes a clear judicial approach to handling Second Amendment challenges, particularly emphasizing public safety over individual rights in the context of felons.
Declaratory Judgments: Clarifies the conditions under which declaratory judgments are appropriate, particularly in cases involving statutory prohibitions affecting specific groups.

Future cases involving firearm possession by felons will likely reference this decision, reinforcing the legal boundaries established for Second Amendment rights in Missouri.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ripeness

Ripeness refers to whether a case is ready for litigation, meaning that the issues are sufficiently developed for courts to make a decision. In this case, the court determined that Alpert's challenge was ripe because the statute's amendment directly affected his ability to possess firearms, creating an immediate and concrete dispute.

Strict Scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislation. Under this standard, the law must serve a compelling government interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Missouri applied strict scrutiny to Section 571.070, affirming its validity as it aligns with public safety concerns.

Declaratory Judgment

A declaratory judgment is a court's determination of the parties' rights and obligations without ordering any specific action or awarding damages. Alpert sought a declaratory judgment to resolve uncertainty about his right to possess firearms under the amended statute.

Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court's decision in Alpert v. State of Missouri reaffirms the constitutionality of restricting firearm possession for felons, aligning with both state and federal constitutional standards. By affirming Section 571.070, the court upheld essential public safety measures while clarifying the boundaries of Second Amendment protections. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights with societal safety, setting a clear precedent for future legal challenges in similar contexts. Additionally, the decision elucidates the procedural aspects of declaratory judgments, emphasizing the importance of ripeness and adequate remedies in pre-enforcement constitutional challenges.