[John Ross]

From my website www.john-ross.net:

10/10 UPDATE: An anti-carry group filed a motion yesterday for a temporary injunction to hold up the implementation of Missouri's License-To-Carry law scheduled to take effect tomorrow. Their grounds were several (throw a bunch of mud and see what sticks.) Today at 4:00 PM St. Louis City judge Steve Ohmer dismissed all claims except the one stating that the carry law might be in contradiction to Missouri's Constitution. He granted the temporary injunction to stop the law from taking effect tomorrow, and set a date for arguments of October 20.

WHAT THIS MEANS: The relevant section of Missouri's state Constitution reads: "that the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property...shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Every legal scholar I've talked to says that "shall not justify" means that the legislature has the right to limit or prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons--which it always has. You cannot claim your "right to keep and bear arms" as an affirmative defense against the charge of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of the law. What the lawsuit-bringers claim, however, is that "shall not justify" means "shall not permit under any circumstances."

At issue is whether the legislature has the right, under our Constitution, to enact any statute which allows even one person to legally carry a concealed weapon. Keep in mind that for many years there have been statutes on the books which permitted some people to legally carry concealed weapons in Missouri: Police, judges, corporate security advisors, certain government agents, process servers, and anyone "engaged in a peaceable journey throughout the state."

IF the eventual ruling (probably from Missouri's Supreme Court) is that Missouri's Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing any License-To-Carry law, then it will also mean that the legislature violated the Constitution when it enacted statutes to allow police officer, judges, etc. to carry concealed. This seems ludicrous to me.* I have to believe that this will get sorted out and citizens will soon be allowed to apply to become licensed to carry.

Thus, I am still offering regular training classes and very few students of mine have cancelled.

John Ross

*Keep in mind that Missouri is the only state north of the Mason-Dixon line where slavery was ever permitted by law. Missouri was also home to Dred Scott and the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision of 1857, which ruled that free blacks were not citizens. After the Civil War, the white ruling classes in the State Legislatures in Missouri and the other former slave states had to be creative to prevent now-free blacks from exercising their rights.

The legislators passed laws that said blacks had to pass literacy tests and pay poll taxes before they could vote. Guns were trickier. Some Southern states enacted laws banning the ownership of all guns not made by Colt or Winchester, as these were quality arms whose price was sufficiently high that only white people could afford them. Missouri, with less subtlety, passed a law in 1874 that prohibited the carrying of any weapon for the purposes of self-protection, including (and I am not making this up), a slingshot. In 1875 came the Constitutional wording listed above. Over a century ago, it was a simple matter to enforce this law only on blacks, as the police and sheriffs in Missouri were all white.

This was exactly what happened, just as the legislators had intended. With blacks disarmed, the Klan had free rein. Lynchings were common here in Missouri long after the Civil War. The prohibition on carrying a weapon for protection was selectively enforced on blacks alone for a full 90 years, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. No white was ever arrested if carrying a weapon for protection was his only crime. Naturally, when an armed robber was caught, a concealed weapon violation would be added to the list of charges. A team of legal researchers in 1992 could not find a case prior to 1964 where a white man in Missouri was arrested and convicted solely on a concealed weapons charge.

[dave5339]

John,

Just curious what the time frame on the Missouri Supreme Court hearing this is?

Also how does this injuction impact out of state permit holders coming into and traveling through Missouri?

Thanks for any light you may shed on this.

Semper Fi

[Standing Wolf]

The prohibition on carrying a weapon for protection was selectively enforced on blacks alone for a full 90 years, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

That loud, sharp "thud" sound was the nail being hit squarely on the head.

[Vasilia Zhietzev]

John, you have my support. How can I assist?

p.s. you were missed at knob creek. met your friend at A1. Very professional & very nice.

[MPFreeman]

My Sacred Lair is not presently in the Show-Me state, though I often travel to the "righteous land of the Ozarks" on business occations. My present Sacred Lair is in the land of the Hoosiers. I've a "License to Carry Handgun" permission slip from Dos Policia. How does the injunction affect reciprosity concerns? Would I be in violation of MO law if I was packing in MO?

[CasualShooter]

The injunction temporily blocks/delays the ENTIRE LTC Bill from going into effect. This would INCLUDE recognition of CCW licenses issued by other states. Plaintiffs suit in effect says ALL CCW is prohibited by the Missouri Constitution. That won't stand; but, as long as the injunction is in place, anyone relying on a CCW permit from out of State is asking for BIG trouble. :cuss:

There is an exception, to the prohibition against Concealed Carrying of Weapons, in the previous statute (which remains in effect pending the outcome of the current litigation) for those travelling peaceably through or within the state; but, the definition of travelling is uncertain. This would not be a good time to test it. In addition to possible felony charges in Missouri, you could put your out of state permit at risk in the issueing state. :banghead: :fire:

[Gray Peterson]

Derek A Ward, a lawyer who is Missouri administrator for Packing.org, seems to think that the order only effects St. Louis City.

[CasualShooter]

Check out these responses filed by the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance and tell us if you think the injunction only applies to St. Louis.:rolleyes:

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

I think Not. :cuss: :banghead:

Almost wish it did! That would almost be be poetic justice. :D

Naw, too many GOOD people in St. Louis would suffer. :)

[John Ross]

Whether this affects the whole state is uncertain. I know of no other similar case where a city judge blocked a law statewide. I believe any sheriff outside the city might well start issuing carry enddorsements, but it may be that they're all going to hold off.

Carrying with another state's permit might well be judged to be legal, but getting that judgment would probably be expensive. In any event, I believe this will get sorted out in short order.

Vasilia, I got delayed by the court hearing Friday but I made it to KCR about 3:30 Saturday afternoon, signed some books, showed off my de-lugged 500 S&W, and caught up with friends. Left about 10 am Sunday.

JR

www.john-ross.net

P.S. Heard from 3 sources that the antis had to put up their houses as collateral to make the $250,000 bond. We'll probably get 'em when damages are awarded. There's a long list of people who have suffered monetarily from the injunction (shooting ranges, trainers, etc.)

[bogie]

So, John, does this mean we're gonna have to wait FOREVER for your next Ross In Range installment?

(evil grin...)

[CasualShooter]

John,

Please correct me if I am wrong; but, didn't the Municipal Court Systems in Kansas City and St. Louis become part of the State Circuit Court System a number of years ago?

IIRC seems like this was a ballot issue which was voted on and passed 15-20 or more years ago.

If this was simply a Municipal Court, they would only have jurisdiction over municipal matters; but, I don't believe that is the case. :(

[SigArms226]

Has anyone seen a location where I could read the actual pleadings going back and forth in this case? Would like to see the text of the injunction entered last week by Ohmer.

[CasualShooter]

I have been searching for the same thing. If any one finds it be sure and post it here. :)

[shooten]

I wish you all that you need to win this one. Typical tactic by the opposition to use the courts to get what they can't win with the legislature. So when is the next Ross In Range?

:p

Scott

[John Ross]

"So when is the next Ross In Range?"

When I get around to it.

This week, I promise.

JR

www.john-ross.net

[Grayrider]

John,

Please take a look at this thread detaling an email exchange between myself and an other pro-CCW Missourian, and Chief Wolf of the law suit. Amazing. He actually is convinced that his officers will be able to carry concealed regardless of the suits outcome because they have the "power of arrest".

http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60485&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

GR

[Ford]

READ THIS, good info:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_10_05_archive.html#106592909587151429

Latest news:

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200310/NAT20031014c.shtml

Lawsuit filed against plaintiffs by WMSA and local ranges:

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

[Ford]

latest newspaper article

http://www.wmsa.net/news/StLouis-PostDispatch/pd-031015_disjointed.htm

[SigArms226]

Found a copy of the TRO entered 10/10 by Ohmer: Unbelievable!
____________________________________________________________

Brooks, et al. v. State et al., Case No. 034-02425, Division 2, October 10, 2003


Judgement

Court takes up plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Court finds a likelihood of success on the merits only on the ground of Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution, and grants the plaintiffs' motion only on that ground. Preliminary injunction to issue upon Injunction bond to be posted by plaintiffs in the amount of $250,000 - thereby enjoining the enforcement of [sections] 50.535, 571.030 and 571.094 (House Bills No. 349, 120, 136 and 328, 92nd General Assembly, commonly known as the conceal and carry law until further Court order.

So Ordered.

Steven R. Ohmer

[Ford]

Kevin Jamison was to debate with Richard Miller and/or Alvin Brooks this morning on the radio. Neither Miller or Brooks showed up.

[44Brent]

John, since your reading this thread, can you answer a couple of questions about Illinois?

1) Do you know of any organized plan to bring right-to-carry laws to Illinois?

2) Have you been asked to help pass a right-to-carry laws in Illinois?

I don't see anything coming out of I$RA to help us out.

The NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde supplied a draft CCW law to a couple of legislators, but the bill is dead in the rules committee.

Although the CCRA is active in supporting a pro-carry message, but they haven't put forth any legislation.

[Gray Peterson]

As for the Illinois question:

It is my opinion that Illinois will be the last CCW ban state. Thank Dickey Daley for that. Wisconsin will go shall issue this year, and Kansas will next year. Nebraska will in 2005 I think. Ohio and Illinois will be the last, probably 2007 for Ohio, and who knows for Illinois.

[CasualShooter]

Lonnie,

I think you're right about Illinois being last and I hope you're right about Kansas being next year.

Kansas passed it about 5-6 years ago only to have it vetoed by a 'Moderate' :barf: Republican Governor who then failed to support, as his successor in the general election, a conservative republican nominee with the result that Kansas now has a Democratic Governor. :banghead:

At this point, it looks like the Kansas Legislature will likely put a Bill on her desk next year. Hopefully, Missouri's success will increase the pressure on her to do something other than veto it. :D

[revlar]

I lived in Chicago many years ago, but once they came up with their "Firearm Owner's ID" card nonsense I realized I likely would never go back - even to visit.

My brother still lives there and is forever trying to get me to head back up to the "Windy City" for a few days. He has lived in Dalyville so long and has been so thoroughly brainwashed by the anti-RKBA tripe that I don't even bother to tell him the real reason why I won't go back up there.

[CasualShooter]

I don't even bother to tell him the real reason why I won't go back up there.
Perhaps you should! Maybe you can bring him around to our side. I know, it takes time, hard work, and patience. Must use heavy doses of Truth and a soft sell when opportunity presents itself. I have two brothers living in a major city in Missouri. One has seen the truth and the other is starting to come around. They BOTH now favor CCW. :)

That is how we will win this fight. One mind at a time! :D

[Don Gwinn]

44Brent, do you have time to read the answers to those questions? It may get involved. ;)

First, your numbered questions:

1. Hell, no. There's no organized anything in Illinois RKBA circles, which is why we get our butts kicked with such alarming regularity and punctuality. The ISRA doesn't care about anything except building highpower and shotgun ranges. The CCRA and ConcealCarry Inc., while much more dedicated to CCW and similar issues than the ISRA, are tiny, underfunded, under-organized, and too often care more about getting back at the ISRA than they do making progress against our enemies. The NRA's Illinois lobbyist moonlights for another organization (ABATE) whose best friend in the legislature (and thus Vandermyde's best buddy in the legislature) is the very anti-gun Lane Evans.

2. Don't know, but I doubt anyone with the power to get much done has ever bothered to ask. In my personal opinion, we need to organize before we do ANYTHING else. We're going to have to accept that it's going to be 5-10 years or more before we get CCW, if ever, and turn our attention to organizing so that we can make it happen. We keep trying to get CCW with six organizations who all hate each other and hamstring each other, and we're screwed. Ten years will still pass, but we'll be right where we are now.
Don't believe me when I say you should expect a ten-year battle from the day you really get serious about CCW? Ask John Ross how long he's been in it since getting really, truly serious about the fight. We haven't gotten really serious in Illinois yet, as a whole, so add however long you think it'll take before we stop bickering like three-year-olds.

VanDerMyde was never serious about that bill, as far as anyone knows. He probably traded it to the few anti-gun legislators who took it seriously for some favor he'd been wanting for awhile. That bill was, at least in the opinion of many observers, submitted because the ISRA was in the middle of a board election in which the "Vision Team" candidates threatened to take over the ISRA and turn it into a fierce pro-carry group. The ISRA board then in place had to do something to look like they were hard at work on CCW. That was the same time that they formed the "Collar Counties Grassroots" groups, which were supposed to show that they were serious about fighting a real battle to win hearts and minds in Chicago. Of course, after the election those orgs died on the vine and no further attention was paid to them.

CCRA did submit a CCW bill, called the "Safe Families Act" because it was introduced around the period that the so-called "Safe Neighborhoods Act" was a big deal. It was a good bill, and CCRA took it very seriously, but again, they're tiny and practically unfunded. Besides, the ISRA had a vested interest in keeping the CCRA from getting any kind of win at all because they consider this a zero-sum game.


We're still experiencing fallout from hurt feelings and jealousy issues ten years old and more. Before any real progress can be made, we have to get more Illinois gun owners involved in actual RKBA work. Proselytizing, showing by example what kind of people "gun nuts" are, building organizations that can exert real pressure on politicians. They're going to have to be strong and committed enough to go through a bunch of failures, some of them devastating, without falling apart.

[sch40]

so, does anyone know how the injunction hearing went today? I've been trying to find some info sources, but came up blank...

thanks,
sch40

[sch40]

I just saw on a live news broadcast (it's 5:45 CST) that the proceedings are still underway...

[bogie]

Bump - 6:30 CST...

Are they still at it?

[fmjcafe]

I just heard a bit on KMOX. They outlined both sides arguments and stated that Ohmer was expected to kick it up to the Supreme Court. They didn`t indicate wether or not the proceedings were finished for the day or not....

[clange]

Well any ruling he issues will 'kick it up to the supreme court' basically.

[fmjcafe]

Question:
If the injunction is allowed to lapse, is the law in effect till the Supreme Court makes a ruling or does it remain on hold till the appeals process has run it`s course?

Also, if the injunction is allowed to lapse can the Supremes decline to hear the case?

[jmcc11]

http://www.kmox.com/news/article.php?id=11149

[Carlos]

Doesn't look good at all, considering the statement against it in the constitution.

Should prove interesting.

[clange]

The statement in the constitution isnt agaisnt it at all, thats the point. I think that the judge taking his time is a good sign for us, given his previous 'could be understood by a 10 year old' anti statements. If he's taking it more seriously, hopefully the MOSC will also.

[revlar]

It's unfortunate that the judiciary is not taking more seriously the fact that in the meantime the law abiding citizens of Missouri remain relatively defenseless.
We've already been waging this battle for thirteen years now, what's another few days, weeks or months - right?

I'm just hoping the guy who has made serious threats against my life chooses to give me a "stay" also.