Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Concealed Carry Law

KMBZ | Thursday, February 26, 2004

[g'nad]

One avenue of attack here in Michigan is the list of disqualifications the new law has

I don't think the RATS have started that here... yet... I just think it's BS you have to pay over $100 for the class, the $50 a year tuh get licensed... that's the RATS way of trying to limit the number of licenses...

[g'nad]

err, make that $100 fer three years... that's double what I paid in Virginia...

[Peace will be here soon]

When they first started releasing information on this ruling, I was kind of worried. But as it is unfolding it sounds much better. I wonder what they will be talking about on KMOX tomorrow? I can already hear the screaming gun-grabbers calling in to give us the sky is falling routine!!

[Don Joe]

They've already got their "out" in the form of a Michiganesque catchall clause: "or is believed by the sheriff to be 'a danger to himself or others.'"

That is the essence of "discretionary," and anyone who doesn't recognize it as such is kidding himself.

That one tiny clause makes it "may-issue", not "shall-issue". Or, if someone insists on spinning it as "shall" issue, it's, "We 'shall' issue, unless we don't want to issue." (How this differs from "may-issue", i.e., "We 'may' issue, if we want to issue," is left as an exercize to the reader.)

[graycamel]

If you think Holden is bad, there's one on the horizon who's ten times worse: Ken Jacob. He's farther to the left than John Kerry. One of his quotes is "Competition is bad; it results in one winner and one loser." He's running for Lt Gov. I may vote rat in the primary just so I can vote against him since he has a rat opponent who is probably not as ratty.

[TYVets]

"If you think Holden is bad, there's one on the horizon who's ten times worse: Ken Jacob.......He's running for Lt Gov"

OH MY GOSH!

This is the same legislator that wanted "a deal" for one of his pork barrel projects that cost taxpayers 190 million dollars.

$190,000,000 for his support of a college name change.

Control Freak = Gun Control.........Beware of the enemy within !

[kt56]

Here's the 2 sections of the courts decision that are getting the most focus now.

Clearly the four counties affected by the "non-enforcement" issue can only refuse to issue permits. It doesn't seem they are in a position to claim that permints issued in other counties are not legal in theirs. See (5)

It would seem that the provision to carry in your car in effect immediately. However, I checked Tim Olivers LTC website, and he has stated that "Due to a Court Rule which says Post Opinion Motions can be filed up to 15 days after the Opinion is issued, the safer course is to not carry in your car or with an an out-of-state permit until that time has elapsed.
So it's up to you whether or not you want to play it safeor not. See (10)

(5)....The evidence shows that Jackson County will incur approximately $150,000 annually in increased personnel costs to fingerprint and conduct background checks on applicants and to process permit applications. The evidence also shows that Camden, Cape Girardeau, Greene and Jackson counties will incur an increased cost of $38 per applicant for the highway patrol to conduct fingerprint analyses. These costs constitute an unfunded mandate in violation of the Hancock amendment. The state is enjoined from enforcing the act in these four counties, but only to the extent it constitutes an unfunded mandate imposed on these counties.

(10) Certain provisions of the concealed-carry act do not implicate the Hancock amendment, are not affected by any unfunded mandate under Hancock and, therefore, are not subject to injunctive relief. These include the reenacted section 571.030, which provides, for instance, that any person 21 years or older lawfully may transport a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, and subsections 20 and 21 of section 571.094, which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons in locations such as churches, courthouses and schools, with exceptions, and sets out civil penalties for failing to leave those locations on request.

Hope this helps some

[Jubal Harshaw]

A particular sheriff may claim that he believes an applicant is a danger to himself or others. Maybe the courts will back up that sheriff. It's irrelevant. Missourians can get a CCW from ANY state:

"Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section [the sections that make carrying a crime] shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to section 571.094 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state."

[Don Joe]

It's irrelevant. Missourians can get a CCW from ANY state

I wouldn't take that one to the bank.

Michgan had a near-identical provision; it was functionally identical.

Then, something happened.

People started exercising it.

That's when the MI AG stepped in, and delivered an "AG Opinion" that the meaning of the law was that licenses issued by other states only applied to residents of other states.

And then, the courts backed him up.

Since it's not uncommon for one state to use "precedent" from another state -- and even without Michigan's "precedent", they could simply decide the same way on their own -- I don't think there's a whole lotta mileage in that provision.

Remember, Michigan's wording was unambiguous and clear, there was no way that a plain reading of it could lead anyone to see anything to imply that it only pertained to non-residents. Yet, that's how they ruled.

[graycamel]

I hope there are debates... Jacob couldn't get 25% outside Columbia.