Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Concealed Gun Law
NewsChannel 5 St Louis ^ | Created: 2/26/2004 12:17:40 PM | newschannel5

Posted on 02/26/2004 11:08:55 AM PST by kt56

KSDK) -- The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled in the ongoing fight over Missouri's "concealed carry" law. The ruling upholds the law as constitutional in Missouri.

However, the court has reversed certain parts of the complicated law.

For now, it can't be enforced in Jackson, Cape Girardeau, Greene, or Camden counties because of funding concerns.

But those same concerns could lead to future appeals, to prevent the law from taking effect in other counties.

Under the law, Missourians age 23 and older can get concealed gun permits after passing background checks and a training course.

We're gathering more information and getting analysis for you.

Did a search and didn't see anything on this yet,,,will have to see how the unfunded mandate issue pans out...developing


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: bang; ccw; concealedcarry; guns; jaynixon; missouri

1 posted on 02/26/2004 11:08:56 AM PST by kt56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kt56
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086012/posts
2 posted on 02/26/2004 11:10:32 AM PST by TheBigB ("Flash, don't heckle the super-villain!" (John "Green Lantern" Stewart))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kt56
I'm in Cape Girardeau County. What does this funding concern mean?
3 posted on 02/26/2004 11:11:37 AM PST by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kt56
"For now, it can't be enforced in Jackson, Cape Girardeau, Greene, or Camden counties because of funding concerns"

Why not? If the law says you can. just get the cops to stop everyone and give them a gun!

Seems fair to me.

Semper Fi

4 posted on 02/26/2004 11:14:29 AM PST by An Old Man (USMC 1956 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe
Not sure yet,,,might mean that those counties aren't obligated to process or issue permits, I don't know if that means permits issued in other counties are not valid in those counties..just don't know yet,,,very confusing.

Here's a good site to keep updated at,,,
MissouriCarry.com

5 posted on 02/26/2004 11:17:19 AM PST by kt56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kt56
I just talked to someone at the sheriff's office and he said that he has no idea what it means, yet.
6 posted on 02/26/2004 11:20:21 AM PST by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe
To punish the hometown/county of Rush Limbaugh!
7 posted on 02/26/2004 11:25:37 AM PST by zerosix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kt56
It means that here in Kansas City we don't have enough of a budget to allow the County authorities the personell to process the permits. Yeah...sure. It'll require BILLIONS of dollars to do it and it'll take funds away from other departments that regulate matresses and curbs. When Kansas votes for it and has to overide their Govenor's veto then the funds will be discovered inside of some dormant fountain or old office funiture from city hall.
8 posted on 02/26/2004 11:28:31 AM PST by Lee Heggy (When truth and logic fail high explosives are applicable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kt56
Our State Supreme Court is simply amazing. I knew they would come out with some screwy ruling on this. It took them so long to even make a ruling that you know they were desperately trying to find a way to whack this law down. Seems they may have found a way, but needed to give the opposition a little more ammo. At least for someone to get it back into court.


9 posted on 02/26/2004 11:33:10 AM PST by Peace will be here soon (Go ACT Brumbies !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lee Heggy
See #23 here:

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Concealed Carry Law

10 posted on 02/26/2004 11:38:49 AM PST by TroutStalker (Whip me, strip me, tie me, fly me -- catch & release)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe
Whats the government got to fund? The Citizens buy the gun, ammo, insurance and permits. Sounds like the gov gets a boost here.
11 posted on 02/26/2004 11:49:32 AM PST by oyez (And so forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Peace will be here soon
Our State Supreme Court is simply amazing. I knew they would come out with some screwy ruling on this. It took them so long to even make a ruling that you know they were desperately trying to find a way to whack this law down. Seems they may have found a way, but needed to give the opposition a little more ammo. At least for someone to get it back into court.

Exactly, I knew they would figure out a way to keep this off balance and as confusing as possible. Tim Oliver at LTC says they are working on that issue as we speak.

Go here for updates
Tim Olivers LEARN TO CARRY

12 posted on 02/26/2004 11:54:49 AM PST by kt56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe
"I just talked to someone at the sheriff's office and he said that he has no idea what it means, yet."

In WI the rat sheriffs used the same bogus whine to justify not issuing permits. They claim it will cost less to send a man to mars than to do background checks on 5 people. BTW, the guy on the phone lied. He knows very well what's going on. Since the Sheriff is an elected official they want to obfuscate as much as possible. Those counties need new Sheriffs, that don't consider the citizens of the county a bunch of irresponsible slugs.

13 posted on 02/26/2004 12:00:45 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Oh, I know he lied. Problem is, my sheriff is a Republican. I am awaiting a call from my state representative.
14 posted on 02/26/2004 12:05:15 PM PST by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Thanks, that's about what I figured. I'm not sure if I'll get a permit or not but if I do I will only carry when I feel the need to. The main thing is that not many will want to bet on that bulge being a sandwich instead of a gun.
15 posted on 02/26/2004 12:30:26 PM PST by Lee Heggy (When truth and logic fail high explosives are applicable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lee Heggy
Are you a resident of one of the counties not allowed to issue? If so, you cannot get a permit. You must apply in the county in which you reside.
16 posted on 02/26/2004 1:18:21 PM PST by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kt56
Congratulations Missouri !! We envy you !!

Now I hope our Kansas Legislature gets up off their hands to press that vote button soon !!!
17 posted on 02/26/2004 2:06:59 PM PST by Buell_X1-1200 (Is it spring yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kt56
From what I understand my Arkansas permit is now vaild in MO. But due to this stupid ruling those living in Mo in a certain 4 counties can not get a permit. Stupid
18 posted on 02/26/2004 6:27:52 PM PST by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: therut
As has been pointed out elsewhere, when those in the surrounding counties that will issue permits begin to carry into Kansas City, Jackson county officials will see that there isn't any point to being a holdout since the costs of getting the permit will pay for the process and then some. The foot dragging is mainly due to the efforts of some community activists such as Alvin Brooks who are anti 2nd Amendment. Mr. Brooks is a man whose constituents are mostly in the black community. He has fears of what legalising conceal and carry could precipitate in that segment and has been very vocal in his convictions. The fact that hundreds if not thousands of those people he is concerned about own and probably carry guns anyway doesn't seem to enter into his rationale. It seems to me that most of the violence in the black community is gang/drugs and 'turf' related and is primarily black on black. It doesn't matter if guns are involved or not. The problem is with a community that is broken and a subculture within that community that has alienated itself.
19 posted on 02/27/2004 6:31:31 AM PST by Lee Heggy (When truth and logic fail high explosives are applicable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lee Heggy
That is not our problem here in Cape Girardeau County. Our sheriff is a Republican and very pro concealed carry. According to him and our state representative, the court included our county because of his testimony in hearings in which he said, when asked, that the county would have to pay a $38 fee to the state trooper office for finger printing. Anyway, our representative, Jason Crowell said that the language would be clarified in an amendment to the statute of funding. And our sheriff, Jordon, said that he would be talking with the county commission Monday to assure them that we have a sheriff's fund that could be used for funding. According to both of them, the problem will be solved within a week.
20 posted on 02/27/2004 7:14:14 AM PST by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All
Court OKs concealed gun law



By Marc Powers ~ Southeast Missourian

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Although the Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of a state law allowing concealed weapons, the state was prohibited from enforcing the act in four counties, including Cape Girardeau. Residents of those counties at least temporarily won't be eligible for permits to carry hidden guns.

Cape Girardeau, Camden, Greene and Jackson counties were exempted from being required to issue permits because the court found the law imposes an unfunded mandate on local government in violation of the Hancock amendment.

In a 5-2 decision, the court said the Missouri Legislature has the constitutional authority to allow concealed weapons. However, the majority opinion penned by Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. of Cape Girardeau exempted the four counties from being required to issue permits because those counties provided evidence that the law violates the Hancocock amendment.

Testimony by Cape Girardeau Sheriff John Jordan in support of the conceal-carry measure before a St. Louis circuit judge ironically and inadvertently led to the county being among those where the law does not have to be enforced.

Nonetheless, Jordan said his office will begin issuing permits in the coming weeks, though it may require action by the Cape Girardeau County Commission before that can happen.

The court left open the question whether a county can fund the permitting costs voluntarily from other revenue sources.

"This is really just a bump in the road," Jordan said. "I am very much in favor of conceal-carry and prepared to proceed."

While the court said Cape Girardeau County didn't have to issue permits, Jordan said the ruling didn't preclude it from doing so.

Attorney General Jay Nixon urged sheriffs to wait until after a statutory fix clears the legislature before issuing permits in order to avoid lawsuits on the Hancock question. The sponsor of the disputed law, state Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California, has already filed legislation seeking to clean up the prior effort and is open to Nixon's input.

But Laclede County Sheriff Richard Wrinkle said he would start issuing concealed gun permits Monday. In Camden County, Sheriff John Page said he plans to begin issuing permits within the next week.

The ruling left some lawmen baffled about how to proceed. "You have 114 poor sheriffs out there trying to figure out this mess," said veteran Sheriff John Hemeyer of Cole County.

Hidden in vehicles

The portion of the law allowing anyone at least 21 years of age to conceal a weapon in a vehicle without a permit went into effect statewide with the court's decision.

Although the concealed weapons law allows sheriffs to charge permit applicants up to $100, it earmarks the proceeds for equipment and training. As a result, the measure's foes said no actual funding was provided for processing permits, thus triggering Hancock.

In addition to Jordan, the sheriffs of Camden and Greene counties also testified in support of the law before the circuit court. A representative of the Jackson County Sheriff's Department testified against it.

The high court determined that at the very least those counties would incur costs of $38 per applicant for having the Missouri State Highway Patrol conduct fingerprint checks, causing a Hancock violation.

But because evidence was on the record for only four counties, the court limited its ruling to those jurisdictions. The court declined to speculate that other counties would also incur costs since such facts were not in evidence. The court left open the possibility of county-by-county lawsuits on that point.

The dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Ronnie White and joined by Judge Richard Teitelman asserted that even with the fees collected by local sheriffs, the law violates Hancock because it provides no state money.

"Hancock requires full state funding, period," White wrote.

Nixon, whose office defended the law in court, said he will draft proposed legislation to address the majority's Hancock concern.

In September the legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Bob Holden to enact the concealed weapons measure. It was set to take effect the following month until blocked by St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Steven Ohmer.

Ohmer rejected the Hancock argument but found the law unconstitutional under a provision of the state Bill of Rights. The relevant section says the right of residents to bear arms "shall not be questioned" but adds that "this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Ohmer interpreted that last clause as an outright ban on concealed weapons, a view the Supreme Court rejected.

"In short, the words used are plain and unambiguous," Limbaugh wrote. "There is no constitutional prohibition against the wearing of concealed weapons; there is only a prohibition against invoking the right to keep and bear arms to justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Joining Limbaugh in the majority were judges Duane Benton, William Ray Price, Michael Wolff and Laura Denvir Stith.

The dissenting judges claimed that since the law is clearly unconstitutional under Hancock, the majority shouldn't have weighed in on the other issue.

Recalling 1999 vote

Holden said he's still convinced allowing concealed weapons is bad public policy, especially given that Missouri voters rejected a similar proposal in 1999.

"This law should have never been enacted over the will of the citizens," Holden said. "It is poorly drafted legislation that will allow any permit holder to carry a weapon in schools, school buses, places of worship and polling places on Election Day."

While the law says concealed weapons can't be taken in the places Holden mentioned, it doesn't make doing so a crime. A person found with a hidden weapon in a restricted area can be asked to leave, and only refusal to do so can result in a citation.

Residents 23 or older who pass a firearms training course and criminal background check are eligible for permits.

Legislative backers of the law applauded the court's ruling, though they said the court's statement on the Hancock issue needs to be thoroughly analyzed.

"We're thrilled that a 5-2 majority of the court has vindicated on the main point the constitutionality of our statute that culminated a 10-year effort to pass into law a right that the vast majority of Americans already have," said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau.

The case is Alvin Brooks, et al., v. State of Missouri, et al.

21 posted on 02/27/2004 7:47:26 AM PST by Conservababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson