[Gray Peterson]

St. Louis Judge Enters Injunction against CCE law (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/BD02E453252A285986256DBB001028E6?OpenDocument&Headline=Judge+delays+concealed-gun+law)

:fire: :fire: :fire: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[Roadkill Coyote]

isnt this a duplicate?

[jimpeel]

The judge cited comments from debate at Missouri's constitutional convention of 1875 that carrying concealed weapons is "a practice which cannot be too severely condemned" and is connected to "incalculable evil."
Weren't they saying the same thing about Blacks, Jews, and Mormons at about this same time?

Richard C. Miller of Kansas City, speaking for the plaintiffs, attacked what he called "a poorly drafted law" that leaves "a wide open field" for people to be armed. He said the law is lax enough to allow someone to take a bomb into a church.
Sound File (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/marxbros/groucho/grouch24.wav)

[greyhound]

I read it but am still somewhat confused? CC(E)(W) has been delayed at the last minute?

Good grief.

[CasualShooter]

I read it but am still somewhat confused? CC(E)(W) has been delayed at the last minute?

Yes, and according to the article, arguments are continuing tonight in appeals court.

Not waiting for them to post bond, Attorney General Jay Nixon immediately asked the state's Eastern District Court of Appeals to set aside the judge's order. A spokesman for Nixon said he expected that court in St. Louis to hear augments on the appeal later Friday night, and vowed Nixon would appeal Ohmer's order to the state Supreme Court if necessary.

Hang onto yer hat, folks. It's going to be a bumpy ride. :banghead:

Wonder who's going to put up that $250,000 bond? :fire:

[Standing Wolf]

Newman and Miller represented a group of public officials, members of the St. Louis Clergy Coalition and the nonprofit Institute for Peace and Justice.

Well, it appears Minnesota's leftist extremists have finally been outdone at snivelling and whining. I didn't think it could happen, but it has.

[CasualShooter]

Newman and Miller represented a group of public officials, members of the St. Louis Clergy Coalition and the nonprofit Institute for Peace and Justice.

They left out the St. Louis Cemetary Occupants who helped them defeat LTC by a narrow margin at the ballot box in 1999. :what:

They are determined to be a major PITA but they're gonna lose. :fire:

[gunsmith]

just picked this up from packing.org!
:cuss:

A judge Friday issued a temporary restraining order delaying the state's new concealed weapons law until the Missouri Supreme Court determines if the measure is constitutional. Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer ruled the law warranted further review by the state's high court and would have caused irreparable harm had it taken effect Saturday. :cuss:

[gunsmith]

a neck tie party:fire:

[clange]

God i hate these ????s. :cuss:

[Grayrider]

Guys I think it is over in Missouri. The Democrats had this planned all along. If you go to the Missouri Supreme Court web site and read the bios of the Justices, it is obvious where this will end. One is an Ashcroft appointee, the rest were appointed by Carnahan and Holden. In fact most are former Democratic party elected officials, and about half of those from St. Louis.

They will hear the case, rule CCW unconstitutional, and we are done. The US Supreme Court won't here the case as it is an issue of state law that has no bearing on the 2nd Ammendment as they interpret it.

Sorry guys--it was a nice dream while it lasted. At least I hadn't bought any expensive carry guns yet.

GR

[CleverNickname]

Assuming the MO SC does rule CCW unconstitutional, how hard is it to change the state constitution?

[StLGlocker]

It ain't over till it's over.

At this point, I'm wondering how hard it would be to amend the MO constitution. That phrase the antis are so hyped about dates from 1875, when gentlemen wore their sidearms openly, and only scoundrels, theives and murderers concealed them.

We still have no state prohibition on open carry. But just try it in St. Louis, and see how many minutes it takes for the cops to land on you. :fire:

[Old Fuff]

I wouldn't give up that quickly. A similar situation happened in Arizona, that had the same kind of wording in their Constitution - and the CCW forces won.

The advocates of CCW licensing in Missouri will draw on this precedent and others. The real issue is, “did the framers of the Missouri Constitution intend to prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons and also prevent the Legislature from passing laws addressing the issue?” If you read the amendment carefully there is nothing to show this this was the case. If it was they would have clearly “prohibited” the practice and not used the word “justify.”

Go to your dictionary and look up the word. Mine says:

1. To show to be right or valid. 2. To pronounce free from blame or guilt. 3. To adjust lines to the proper length in printing. (Webster’s II New Riverside Desk Dictionary).

What the amendment says is that one could not use it as an authorization to carry concealed weapons. And the Missouri Constitution does not contain any provisions that restrict the power of the Legislature to pass statutes that provide for conditional carrying of concealed weapons if it sees fit too do so. In fact they have already done this in the past by authorizing certain public officials and law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons, and have done so without challenge.

This particular statute was not only passed by the legislature - it was passed over the Governor’s veto. The plaintiff’s claims about endangering the public can easily be disproved by researching the experience of some 40-plus other states. The claim of an unfunded mandate forced upon the county sheriffs will fail because of an up-to $100.00 fee imposed by the statute on prospective concealed weapon license candidates.

Certain members of the Missouri Supreme Court may not like the idea of CCW in principal, but if they declare the statute to be unconstitutional they must present a reasonable opinion for doing so. This I doubt they can do. But if they do, a major battle will be started between the Legislature and Supreme Court over prerogatives and powers that will go far beyond anything too do with guns. I don’t believe the Court really wants too start something like that.

[clipse]

I still have confidense that it will go into effect. It may not be untill Oct. 23rd but I do think it will happen. I just took my class yesterday that cost $150 so it better go into effect.:D I am still very angry that they are putting it off. Its like putting a piece of cake in front of a fat kid and telling him he can't eat it untill they decided it is ok to eat, if that even happens.


clipse:fire:

[Grayrider]

There is one flaw in all the legal arguments. These are corrupt Democrats appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court as a reward for being lap-dogs for our crooked governors. The way politics work in Missouri is the St. Louis establishment controls the state by rigging elections there. Here is an example. Our previous attempt at CCW was Proposition B, a ballot issue. It passed in every county save for KC, St. Louis, and the state capital. Still would have been enough votes to make it law. However, in St. Louis a local judge ordered the polls to stay open late just to make voting "fair". Mysteriously their brand new computerized voting system in St. Louis failed to work that night. By coincidence most of the votes cast against CCW were cast while the system was down. Enough to cost Prop B the election.

Get the picture of Missouri politics? The justices will not care about the Constitution, or the meaning of the law, or what the Founding Fathers wanted. They will care about their controllers in the Democratic Party.

But hey, I could be wrong. Lets sure hope so! No one wants this more than I do. Years of frustration with Missouri politics are just taking its toll on my morale.

GR

[revlar]

We have not been fighting for this for thirteen years to just lay down now. We will prevail. I have no doubt.

[clange]

At this point, I'm wondering how hard it would be to amend the MO constitution.
Not sure about legislative requirements, but once thats done it would go to a public vote. :fire:

[CasualShooter]

<http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm?sitekey=kc1&Forum=41&Topic=9225>

Here's My answer: :D

The interpretation being sought by those opposed to the concealed carry of weapons is a real "stretch" of the english language and is not consistent with the views of constitutional scholars and legal experts familiar with the issue.

The law will be validated by an honest interpretation of the constitution by the Missouri Supreme Court.

The same trite arguments have been advanced by the Missouri opponents to Concealed Carry of Weapons as were advanced in virtually every other State where similar laws were passed. Opponents were wrong more than 20 years ago and they are still wrong today.

Opponents' predictions of doom and gloom have not been experienced by other States following their adoption of similar laws.

Officials, in such states, which had initially been opposed to concealed weapons, have subsequently stated that the prior predictions of doom and gloom failed to materialize and they haven't had proplems with it.

Credible studies of the subject by serious scholars have found CRIME DECREASED AT A FASTER RATE and LIVES WERE SAVED following enactment of similar laws in other states.

Are Missouri opponents to the law right in their assertion that Blood will run in the streets as Missourians go on shooting rampages if the Supreme Court determines the new law to be valid? I think not!

Are Missourians more violent than the citizens of 44 other States? I think not!

The police can NOT be there to prevent the crime and are only able to arrive after the fact to investigate it in most cases.

The Courts have ruled that the Police have NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS and are not liable for their failure to do so. Individual CITIZENS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION.

The new law does NOT REQUIRE ANYBODY TO CARRY A WEAPON. Also, it does NOT ALLOW EVERYBODY the indescriminate right to Carry Concealed Weapons.

The new law provides for only LAW ABIDING citizens to obtain an endorsement to Carry Concealed Weapons AFTER they have submitted an application and fee with: 1) their finger prints; 2) proof of proper instruction in the law; 3) proof of proper instruction in the handling of concealed weapons; and, 4) proof of the proscribed level of proficiency in the use of concealed weapons on a firing range. They must then satisfactorily undergo a background investigation and a records check at the local, state and national levels before a Concealed Weapons Endorcement may be approved by their County Sheriff.

Anyone who satisfactorily completes these requirements and obtains a Concealed Weapons Endorcement is, in effect, A CERTIFIED GOOD GUY.

It is STILL A FELONY FOR A BAD GUY TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON. Do Bad Guys obey such laws? No, they're BAD GUYS!

Now, you may be afraid of weapons and you don't have to carry one, if you don't want to; but, in a world following 9-11, if you are sitting in a Luby's Cafeteria; and, a BAD GUY crashes his vehicle in and gets out and starts indescriminately shooting and killing other customers, which would give you the greatest comfort? Would it be the knowledge that the law probitted the carrying of weapons by any one else that may be present? Or, would it be the sight of a CERTIFIED GOOD GUY taking action to save his own life and in the process, yours as well?

[jimpeel]

If this is blocked, sue the people who caused the law to be overturned in small claims court for the return of your money.

You may not win if they show up but tyou will if they don't. YYou can then attach their property and have the Marshall confiscate it for sale.

Even if they show up and you lose, they will have had to show up and be inconvenienced. If everyone who lost $150 did this it would cause them to lose a lot more than $150 in time spent.

They can't use a lawyer or representative in small claims court and they can't have the cases converted to class action status. They have to show up themselves.

The least you can do is make a real pain in the patoot of yourself.

It'd be kinda fun if you could show up to court carrying openly.

[CasualShooter]

Guys I think it is over in Missouri.

Boy, do I love doom and gloom - NOT! :D

There has been to much hard work, over too many years to roll over and give up now!

I think that the most they will be able to do is delay it. :banghead:

They have hung their hat on an erroneous interpretation of the Missouri Consitution which most people can see through. :scrutiny:

Further, if the Court should agree with their interpretation that the Constitution PROHIBITS the carrying of concealed weapons, it looks like the police and other law enforcement will have to give up theirs too, since there is no exception provided for them. :uhoh:

Even if that were the case, It's my bet that a Constitutional Amendment would succeed.

In 1999, they were narrowly able to defeat Prop B by a narrow margin by turning out the "Cemetary Vote" in St. Louis -- But that was before the events of 9-11.

It's my bet that even if this did go to another vote of the people that there aren't enough occupants in St. Louis Cemetaries to help them this time. I think a lot more people are concerned about their own safety now-a-days and I bet that it would pass by a large margin.

However, I don't think it will come to that. If it does, then Missourians should start thinking about how they can recall or impeach some Judges and Justices. :cuss:

And if that would require a Constitutional Amendment, why not consider putting that on the same ballot? :D

As it is, this should be a major issue in next years elections in Missouri. If Missouri's Supremes rule it unconstitutional, then this should become Issue Number 1 for many Missourians. :fire:

[Missouri Mule]

I will not lay down and die for anyone except my family.

Sadly it really does not matter what the Constitution says or actually means. The antis will twist it no matter what so long as it meets their agenda.

I swear I don't understand how one judge can undo the work of an entire states legislature. Those Mo stae senators and representatives actually listened to their constituents and passed this bill.

I don't give a damn if some crybaby police chief and his mates don't like it.

I have to live with a lot of crap I don't like, so It is time for these arrogant asses to get over themselves and grow up.

Wouldn't it be great if Anheuser-Busch were to finace the counter suit,
which I am hoping is coming. :fire:

[Missouri Mule]

Unfortunately......in the "Liberal" mind, facts and the truth are irrevellant.

The only thing that matters to them is getting their way and gaining control.

I am not giving up but the odds don't seem to be in our favor if this does infact go to the MO supreme court.

I am hoping I am wrong but I am thinking I read somewhere recently that the majority of the MO Sup court judges are libs.

[CasualShooter]

Wouldn't it be great if Anheuser-Busch were to finace the counter suit,

As I understand it, the Missouri Attorney General has already filed the counter suit in the Missouri Supreme Court. I expect that others should already be preparing their "Friend of the Court Briefs"

[Standing Wolf]

As I recall, New Mexico had essentially the same state constitutional problem the first time it passed a shall issue law.

If the citizens of Missouri can pass a shall issue law, they can amend their constitution as needed even if the oligarchic judicial leftist extremists thwart them temporarily.

We all stand with you, Missourians!

[Grayrider]

QUOTE:

Further, if the Court should agree with their interpretation that the Constitution PROHIBITS the carrying of concealed weapons, it looks like the police and other law enforcement will have to give up theirs too, since there is no exception provided for them.


I had thought of this. Interesting possibility if this could be used to make the Democrat's lawsuit backfire on them. Should they succeed perhaps one of us should file a suit arguing this position. I hate to anger LEOs, many of who are my friends, but such a strategy might be worth it. In fact perhaps we should infore the person's responsible for the suit of our intent to do so. I have some emailing to do I think.

GR

[Grayrider]

Okay guys, here is a link to my thread with the anti-CCW plaintiff's email addresses:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43889

I sent them all an email stating that if their argument wins out that the Missouri Constitution bans all citizens from carrying concealed weapons, I intend to file a suit arguing that this includes police officers. To be clear that I am not anti-LEO, I also suggested that perhaps this is what they want as many of the urban anti-gun polticians thrive on high crime rates and weak law enforcement to help keep them in office.

I call on my fellow Missourians to email them with the same threat. Perhaps if they realize that they may be opening a can of worms on the LEO concealed carry issue, they will reconsider their suit. It would probably work best if they thought this counter-suit idea was catching on amongst a wide number of Missourians, and not just one extremist pro-gun wacko (namely me). Please spread this idea to other forums, and a big thank you to Casual Shooter for jogging my memory on this interesting angle to the anti-gunner's flawed argument.

GR

[CasualShooter]

I call on my fellow Missourians to email them with the same threat.

Careful, Guys & Gals. Never threaten, that could prove to be VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. :eek:

Several years ago, one of the legislators who was against CCW in Missouri managed to get it derailed and killed that year by simply claiming that he had been threatened. I believe that was later determined to be a bogus claim on his part; but, it allowed him to achieve his purpose. :uhoh:

I personally doubt its effectiveness and don't think it's a good idea; but, if you are determined to engage the opposition in such manner, BE POLITE. YOU MAY PROMISE; BUT, NEVER THREATEN. NEVER give these people any basis which they may use to claim they were threatened because they WILL use it against us. :banghead:

We MUST Maintain the High Road.

I feel that the question of equal application of any such "prohibition" against CCW will most likely be included in the briefs which are being and will be filed with the Courts. I will leave that to the Attorneys.

At this point, I believe it best to leave the fighting to the Attorneys and for us to play a support role rather than involve ourselves in the fighting by directly engageing the plaintiffs. :banghead:

That's my 2 cents worth. :D

[Grayrider]

I am not calling on anyone to threaten them in a physical sense, just state that should they suceed they are creating the possibility of more law suits that will put at risk the ability of LEOs to carry concealed. Surely they would not risk being the politicians who made it illegal for police officers to carry protection when doing their jobs. Although as I suggested that may not be of concern to them as these are anti-law enforcement politicians.

Sorry if that was not clear from my above post. I am suggesting a bit of grass-roots politics. Nothing wrong with that.

GR

[Vasilia Zhietzev]

Grayrider,

I think your heart is on the right place, but what will requesting LEO's be unarmed really do for the injunction against the recently voted CCW law? It's damn brave of you to go say that to all the local anti's, no doubt about that. They can be quite inflexible in their views, at times requiring a good old kick in the hindquarters like the famed Missouri mules.

Try to look at it from the anti POV, and find the legal loopholes and weaknesses there. Give me a day to look over the wording of the injunction, I may be able to find something to fit. My Monday will be busy with chemo/surgery, so please forgive me if i don't get back to you for a bit after that day.

Also, try writing this man: mrgibbons@mail.senate.state.mo.us
He's fairly young, fresh, and really wants to get support and constituents.

I am in total agreement that the CCW law should not be delayed in its enactment. To attempt to stop it is foolish. You have my best wishes.

[CasualShooter]

Vasilia Zhietzev,

It's great to see a new member 'jumpin' in'.

Welcome to the HIGHROAD! :)

[Vasilia Zhietzev]

CS:

It's my fight too. What next? I support Mike Gibbons, he's a good person. I support John Ross, his book has done more to change my view than any other person I know, barring one, whom shall remain nameless for his own good. The hardest part was admitting I was'nt thinking for myself.

Man. did that hurt to say out loud.

Later. Got an injunction to read. :evil:

[Grayrider]

I suggest we also contact LEOs that we know and ask them if they are aware of the potential risk to their right to CCW if the lawsuit filed in St. Louis succeeds. I have yet to see a single cheif or sheriff point that out to the media. If they did so in any numbers it might lead to the suit being dropped. Every LEO I know is pro-CCW, so it should be possible to get some momentum in that community. I will see what I can do on that angle as well.

I would never want to see MO LEOs unable to carry. But we have to push this issue to try and preserve the law. If we don't, I would bet money some leftist group like the ACLU would be quick to sue the first police officer/department that has a shooting involving one of their people using a concealed weapon. PDs better think hard before remaining silent on the current lawsuit.

GR

[F4GIB]

St. Louis politics in action. The decision won't be sustained.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html Link should work.

>>>>> The Suit Blocking Missouri's New Concealed Weapon Permit Law

Here's an article about it. Essentially, the argument is that the Missouri Constitution, Art. I, sec. 23, says:
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
The opponents of the new concealed weapon permit law are insisting that "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" means that concealed weapons are a violation of the Constitution.
Not so.

This provision to the state constitution was added in 1875 to clarify that the state legislature had the authority to prohibit or regulate the carrying of concealed weapons, and that anyone who sought to justify carrying concealed weapons under Art. I, sec. 23, was wrong. This did not mean that concealed carry could not be made lawful by the legislature. This isn't just my opinion.

State v. Wilforth (Mo. 1881) was decided under this same Missouri Constitution provision. The Court held that a ban on concealed carry was constitutional. The exact language used suggests that the legislature was within its discretion in passing a ban. There is nothing that directly claims that the provision in question required a ban on concealed carry--only that "but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons" was intended to give the legislature authority to pass a ban on concealed carry as they saw fit.

State v. Shelby (Mo. 1886) clearly grants legislative discretion in what laws may be passed to regulate not only concealed carry, but even open carry when intoxicated or in certain places. While not explicit that the "justify the practice" clause allowed the legislature to legalize concealed carry, it's hard to read the
text of this decision's comments and not come to that conclusion.
The right of the legislature to prohibit the wearing of concealed weapons under state constitutions, in many respects like our own, is now generally conceded. Indeed, our constitution, in express terms, says that it is not intended thereby to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons. The portions of the act which make it an offence for any one to carry concealed upon his person a dangerous or deadly weapon , is clearly within the legitimate domain of legislative power.
State v. Keet (Mo. 1916) is a bit on point to the question. Apparently, the Missouri legislature had at times provided certain exceptions to the general ban on concealed carry.
The provision exempting those who carried a weapon in self-defense from the penalty of the law originated in Revised Statutes 1879, § 1275. That provision was expressly repealed by the act of April 28, 1909 (Laws of 1909, p. 452), and has never been re-enacted.
Clearly, the Missouri legislature had the authority to allow concealed carry under some conditions, and the Keet decision doesn't dispute that they had that authority.

Lots of states in the 19th century amended their state constitution right to keep and bear arms clauses to specify that the state had authority to regulate the manner in which arms may be born, to give authority to the legislature to ban concealed carry, especially because of the uncertainties associated with Bliss v. Commonwealth (Ky. 1822). (That's a very slow document to load--it's an image, not text.) Kentucky's arms provision of 1891 includes "subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." The 1850 arms provision was, "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." No one has seriously argued that Kentucky's similar provision meant that the state lacked authority to license concealed carry. You can check here for a pretty complete list of state constitutional provisions.

I would also point out that while many late 19th century decisions by other state supreme courts upheld concealed carry bans, sometimes based on the presence of a exception for concealed carry like the Missouri Constitution has, and sometimes not, most of these bans included exemptions for travelers. The Missouri statute that previously banned concealed carry exempted peace officers. Does this mean that the previous statute is also unconstitutional? Of course not. <<<<<

[jimpeel]

The link ... she'sa no work.

[Grayrider]

Okay, this is helping my morale. It is apparent that the new law is not in violation of the constitution both from the wording of the ammendment and the precidents cited here. That *should* work in our favor. The issue will be if the judges are wanting to do their jobs, or participate in the ugly trend of judicial legislation/activism. Time will tell. I will think on whether to take my CCW class or not. If it is going to take months to work through this, I may just wait and see.

This has been a fun and enlightening discussion. Good to see so many Missourians on here, so dedicated to seeing this through!

GR

[revlar]

I'll soon be posting a couple of snail-mails to the "reverends" on the plaintiff list. The letters are very respectful - still firm and informative - "pastor to pastor" kind of stuff.

I doubt it will have much effect on them - but it should let them know that we "men of the cloth" are not, necessarily, in the same corner on this one.

I guess they forgot that even the Holy Scriptures permit self defense - or perhaps they were absent from preacher school that day.

In any event - they're about to be reminded.

[CasualShooter]

jimpeel,

The link didn't work for me, either.

Try this one:

<http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html>

[CasualShooter]

revlar,

Another new member jumpin' in on this. This is GREAT!

Welcome to the High Road. :)

[Geech]

The hardest part was admitting I was'nt thinking for myself.

Are you a former 'anti', Vasilia?

[Johnny Guest]

We Texans are rootin' for the good folk of Missouri!

Agree that THREATS are generally counterproductive. Right-thinking or wrong-headed, lotsa people will dig in their heels and do something just to SPITE those who would threaten them.

I think a better course of action might be to remind elected officials that they have an obligation to act upon the expressed wishes of their constituency. One way might be to mention former Texas Governor Ann Richards. A dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, whe was an extremely popular political figure, both in Texas and across the USA. A very engaging erson, she was quite plain spoken, and was even being whispered about as possibly the first female US President.

Governor Richards made a VERY bad move, though, when she decided to substitute her liberal ideas of "What is Best for the People" for what they wanted to do. She sabotaged the referendum on whether or not Concealed Carry should even be considered - - Wouldn't allow it on the ballot at all. WHOOPS! Even those who did not favor the CHL resented Ms. Richards' high handed and dictatorial attitude. Texas State Rifle Association did an excellent job of getting out the vote, and Guvner Annie was tossed out of office, largely (but not entirely) on this single issue. Too bad, too. That ol' gal had a lot of promise . . . .

I'd think the famous Missouri skepticism and stubbornness might well promote a similar backlash.

Very best of luck to the Missourians.
Johnny

[Old Fuff]

Grayrider:

Ya know ..... If I were you and I got the chance I'd take that class anyway.

Now "I" of course know everything there is too know. And I suspect that you are just as smart as I am .....

But ya know ..... When I took a class in Arizona I found out there were a few things I didn't know ......

Education I believe, is always a plus.

[Ford]

link to a list of the MO supreme court judges

http://www.osca.state.mo.us/SUP/index.nsf/Judges?OpenView


help fight for the cause, join WMSA, Kevin Jamison now has a class action lawsuit against Alvin Brooks, Mayor Pro Tem and one of the plaintiffs trying to overturn the ccl

http://www.wmsa.net/the_next_page.htm

[CasualShooter]

join WMSA, Kevin Jamison now has a class action lawsuit against Alvin Brooks, Mayor Pro Tem and one of the plaintiffs trying to overturn the ccl

Ford, I will agree with you that anyone in Western Missouri who is interested in supporting this issue should be a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance (WMSA). Kevin Jamison is the President. He is a practicing Attorney with a general practice and a concentration in weapons and self defense and has been an activist fighting for License to Carry in Missiouri since 1991.

I couldn't find any thing on a class action lawsuit and your link didn't seem to help. Perhaps you could explain.

It was encouraging to note, however, that the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance (WMSA) has jumped into the middle of this challenge to Missouri's LTC with responses to plaintiffs lawsuit which were filed last Thursday including:

Responses to a suit filed in St. Louis:

MOTION TO INTERVENE
INTERVENOR’S PETITION
INTERVENOR’S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PRAYER FOR HEARING ON PETITION FOR INTERVENTION

It's too long to repeat all of these here; but, the following excerpt from INTERVENOR’S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION should be of particular interest to Grayrider:

4. Petitioners Make the frivolous claim that the concluding clause of the constitutional provision in Article I Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution recognizing the right to keep and bear arms “but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons” is an absolute bar to the legislature authorizing the wearing of concealed weapons. This clause clearly refers to the preceding language. It states that the right to own and carry weapons does not include the right to wear them concealed. The legislature is authorized to grant that right, as it has in RSMo 571.030 granting the right to carry concealed weapons to persons in their own homes or place of work, when hunting, traveling peaceably through the state, law enforcement officers, probation officers, wardens and jailers, process servers, “corporate security officers” licensed by the City of St. Louis, and judges. If the plaintiffs prevail on this point, the court must necessarily strike down these exemptions as unconstitutional as well, and, for lack of a severability clause, all of RSMo 571.030.

Those interested can view the responses in their entirety at the following link:

<http://www.wmsa.net/other/intervenor_petition_0310.htm>

Kevin Jamison helped found WMSA in 1989 and this organization has been involved in this fight and in other forms of assistance in areas of training and self defense for more than a decade. They deserve our support.

[Grayrider]

That is just the sort of action we need. The WMSA is clearly on the ball here. The exemption issue will be a maker or breaker, as only the most radical of antis would want to take CCW away from LEOs.

I have been busy at well. I got the wake up call out on this to some LEO friends of mine. They had not considered the implications, and the wheels are now turning. We may yet hear a response publicly to the suit concerning the issue of the LEO exemption being put at risk.

GR

[Pumpkinheaver]

God I'd like to think that there are a few honest judges on the Missouri supreme court that will at least listen to our side.

[clange]

God I'd like to think that there are a few honest judges on the Missouri supreme court that will at least listen to our side.
A few, sure, enough for a majority..? After all, if you dont get the majority, all you get is a nice worthless dissenting opinion. :scrutiny:

[zastros]

We all agree, it blows.
As an aside, to be 'safe' the "No (legal) Guns Here" signs are going up all around St.Louis metro area. At the local synagogue school I emerged as the 'voice of reason' in a debate between one of the other parents and one of the teachers. (And if you knew me, you'd appreciate the irony of that as much as I did.) So people, like I told him, "Soft sell." Venting your frustrations at some [Complete moron] person may make you feel better, but, in this case, it alienated the [braindead cretin] teacher, her assistant, another teacher sitting nearby, and another parent dropping their kid off. I pulled him aside and then went back to try to do some damage control. Will it work? Doubtful, in one case, possibly, in another. After I talked with her about it I was able to get her to agree to look at some data on guns, CCW, U.S vs. Other countries murder rates, blahblahblah that I'm going to send her. We'll see if it works
( BTW I'll be looking at Guntruths.com and the JPFO (obviously) sites for my data. Anybody have othr suggestions?)


Keep your temper folks.

zastros