19th century lawyer is big gun in concealed carry battle


PDA






Mark Tyson
October 25, 2003, 06:20 PM
19th century lawyer is big gun in concealed carry battle

10/25/2003

19th century lawyer is big gun in concealed carry battle

BY PETER SHINKLE

As attorneys wrangle over the constitutionality of Missouri's new concealed
weapons law, a figure from a turbulent era in the 19th century is casting his
shadow through a St. Louis courtroom.

What Thomas T. Gantt said - and what he meant - as key member of a committee that helped draft the 1875 revision of the state constitution is at the crux of a trial court dispute certain to end up with the Missouri Supreme Court.

That version of the constitution added a provision to the right of citizens to
bear arms, saying "this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Records of the day show that Gantt, a prominent lawyer who once helped quell bloody riots in the streets of St. Louis, had a strong opinion in the matter.

"It is a practice which cannot be too severely condemned," he said. "It is a
practice fraught with the most incalculable evil."

But do the words in the constitution mean that the Legislature is
prohibited from authorizing people to carry concealed weapons, which it did
earlier this year over Gov. Bob Holden's veto?

Attorney General Jay Nixon's office, the National Rifle Association and others
supporting the statute say the Legislature not only has such authority but also has used it repeatedly to allow hidden guns on police, prison wardens, parole officers and judges.

St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Steven Ohmer ruled Oct. 10 that the challenge to
the law was likely to succeed and issued a preliminary injunction. Once he
rules on a permanent injunction, the losing side is expected to take its case
to the state's high court.

A legal puzzle

As the dispute moves forward, Gantt's comments and the language of the
constitution he helped to draft are key pieces in a complex legal puzzle.

For all the rancor now, the original constitutional provision apparently
provoked little debate.

On May 13, 1875, Gantt, then an attorney in private practice, reported on the
committee's draft of a bill of rights and preamble. He introduced the section
reaffirming a citizen's right "to bear arms when he is summoned legally or
under authority of law to aid the civil processes or defend the state."

Gantt said, "There will be no difference of opinion I think on that subject;
but then the declaration is distinctly made that nothing contained in this
provision shall sanction or justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

He noted that in at least one other state, its constitution's right to bear
arms had led to a conclusion that its legislature could not make concealed
weapons illegal.

"The wearing of concealed weapons is a practice which I presume meets with the
general reprobation of all thinking men," Gantt continued, speaking at a time
when infamous outlaw Jesse James was terrorizing Missouri.

His comments are recounted in the 12-volume Debates of the Missouri
Constitutional Convention of 1875, which lawyers said appears to reflect no
significant debate on the issue.

On May 25, 1875, the amendment was adopted without further discussion of
concealed weapons. A year earlier, the Legislature had passed a law making them illegal anyway.

Differences over intent

Richard Miller, an attorney for those trying to block the new law, said in
court Thursday that the record of the debates showed that framers of the
constitution did not mean for the Legislature to have authority to legalize
concealed weapons.

"The intent is absolutely clear," he said.

"Don't you think if they intended for the Legislature to have the right to
allow concealed carry, they would have at least mentioned it? There is no
mention," he said.

But in arguing in support of the statute, Alana Barragan-Scott, an assistant
attorney general, said Gantt's comments don't prevent lawmakers from taking
action. "The power to regulate had been reserved to the Legislature," she
insisted.

Attorneys attacking the law say the authority for law officers to carry
concealed guns comes from the police powers of the state. But opposing lawyers say that if the constitution bans them, not even police can wear them.

"The door is open to the Legislature, or it's shut," Michael Minton, attorney
for the National Rifle Association, told Ohmer in arguments Thursday. If the
plaintiffs are right, Minton said, law officers carrying concealed weapons "had
better take those guns off today."

A concerned lawyer

Whatever Gantt intended, there is little question that he was concerned about the city of St. Louis and the violence it sometimes endured.

Gantt was born in Washington in 1814. He enrolled in the U.S. Military Academy in 1831, but left at the end of his second year after a disabling injury to his right leg.

After studying law and moving to St. Louis, he was appointed by President James Polk as the U.S. attorney here in 1845. Gantt won acclaim for helping victims and improving sanitation during the cholera epidemic that killed 6,000 people in the city in 1849.

In 1854, he was serving as city counselor when the Know-Nothings, members of a secret society that inveighed against Catholics and foreigners, rioted and
attacked Irish residents.

The mayor, struggling to control the city, called out various volunteer
military forces, including the German Pioneer Corps and the Continental
Rangers, but the riot continued for two days. Gantt was captain of a volunteer
force that helped quell the riot. Ten people died and 30 were wounded,
historical accounts say.

The Know-Nothing riot led Gantt to write a law to "prevent riots and breaches
of the peace," according to the Encyclopedia of the History of St. Louis of
1899. The book describes him in glowing terms, saying, "To courage absolutely fearless was united the gentleness of a most charitable nature."

As a national debate over slavery intensified, Gantt opposed secession, then
served in the Union Army as a judge under Gen. George McClellan.

After the war, he was in private law practice and helped found the Bar
Association of St. Louis. In 1875, he was elected a delegate to the
Constitutional Convention.

There, Gantt spoke in favor of limiting police powers. Introducing a proposed
revision of the state's bill of rights, Gantt warned that the city charter of
St. Louis contained a provision allowing police at any time to enter people's
homes. That was something that "ought to be impossible," he said.

The new constitution created the St. Louis Court of Appeals, the state's first
appellate court, and the governor named Gantt as its first presiding judge.

Now, 114 years after his death, opponents of the concealed weapons law are
lionizing Gantt, while supporters are dismissing his views.

Gannt's concern of "incalculable evil" is unsupported, said Richard Gardiner,
an attorney for the National Rifle Association. "A law-abiding person should be
able to carry a concealed weapon to protect himself."

Catherine Tierney, Steve Bolhafner, Pamela Barnes and Matthew Fernandes of the Post-Dispatch News Research Department contributed to this report.

Reporter Peter Shinkle:
E-mail: pshinkle@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-621-5804

If you enjoyed reading about "19th century lawyer is big gun in concealed carry battle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
October 25, 2003, 08:50 PM
I think the author of this article is unusually fair-minded. This is the first time I've seen a mainstream media explanation that shows how this lawsuit has threatened concealed carry for cops, judges and similar government officials.

If the state courts somehow find that CCW for the "government elite" is OK while CCW for "peons" isn't, there's going to be trouble. At a minimum, that's got to be taken up with the Federal courts...because THAT would be simply intolerable.

Shooter 2.5
October 25, 2003, 08:59 PM
I guess if they find against the CCW law, then the police can no longer carry concealed but then everyone can just strap on their hoglegs and carry openly.

Sounds like a plan to me.

CasualShooter
October 26, 2003, 10:51 AM
There, (at the Constitutional Convention) Gantt spoke in favor of limiting police powers.
Yup, no doubt about it, anyway you look at it. If the Missouri Constitution prohibits CCW for Citizens, it's prohibitted for EVERYBODY, including police and judges. :neener:

BTW, ONE of the problems with 'Open Carry' in Missouri is that the Preemption Statute provides an exception to allow political subdivisions to regulate it (now THERE is an area that may be subject to challenge on a Constitutional basis). Section 21.750.3, RSMo, provides:
<http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c000-099/0210750.htm>
3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, RSMo, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction. This section shall take effect on January 1, 1985. emphasis added.

Oh, and the article was much better than some. It was interesting and informative and may give some insight to some of the thinking of the oppossition; but, it's still biased in favor of trying to make the case for the plaintiffs. :banghead:

Jim March
October 26, 2003, 02:25 PM
Wait.

Hold on here.

You're telling me they passed a LAW in 1985 that specifically overrides the state Constitution?

:scrutiny:

And nobody's challenged that yet?

fmjcafe
October 26, 2003, 07:30 PM
Here`s a copy of the e mail I sent in response:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am astounded at the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs in the concealed carry fight currently being played out in the courts. I never thought I`d live to see the day that they would cite the Framers intent and quote the words of a dead white guy as justification for depriving law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves. I thought the Constitution was a living document?

Pendragon
October 27, 2003, 03:13 AM
very interesting.

I wonder if anyone will look at it with the proper view that constitutions are supposed to be limitations on government power.

Just because their constitutions does not "justify" CCW does not mean the legislature cant do so. I seems pretty clear that he just wanted to clarify that the clause was not designed to make blanket CCW legal.

bogie
October 27, 2003, 01:05 PM
I dropped the poor author a short note - I suspect he may be getting tired of 'em... Here's the reply...

====

Not recently.

Peter Shinkle





bogie <bogie7@mindspring.com> on 10/27/2003 10:19:40 AM

Please respond to bogie <bogie7@mindspring.com>

To: pshinkle@post-dispatch.com
cc:

Subject: story idea


Regarding the lawyer from the 1800s and concealed carry - have you done any research into any of the other Jim Crow laws from that era, and how they were justified?

Futo Inu
October 27, 2003, 06:30 PM
You know, this is a troublesome issue, because the plain reading of the MO constitution supports the plaintiffs (who want to block the implementation of CCW), which is terribly unfortunate. It's pretty darned simple: "but this shall not be construed as to allow the carrying of concealed weapons". Duh factor high. Seems to me carrying concealed is flat out illegal by ANYONE unless and until the Const. is changed. But make no mistake, if the courts are gonna overturn CCW, they're gonna have to overturn every law allowing people to CC, police officer or otherwise. Quite a pickle, isn't it? The best solution is to amend the constitution of the state. The second best solution is for the MO Supreme Court to basically ignore the plain meaning, create some trumped up reason/argument why, and allow all CC, including the new CCW law. But these plaintiffs can't have their cake and eat it too. If the law means exactly what it says, then it means exactly what it says, and lawmen will have to carry on the hip exposed or not at all. I'm quite pleased with the pickle they're in, in one sense - puts the LEOA aristocrat vs. non-LEO peasant distinction to the forefront. 'Twill be interesting, in any event. It's just sad that lives may be lost while this case is being litigated, and the law temporarily blocked until its decided. But honestly, you cannot blame these plaintiffs when the constitution clearly states that concealed carry is no-go. The debate is where is *should be*, on the meaning of the Constitution. Let's be sure to put the BLAME where it should be as well - this idiot lawyer and his followers who put the stupid after-phrase in the Const. in the first place, not these plaintiffs. It's such a plain English thing that it really HAS TO be litigated. The constitution is the supreme law of the state, if not in conflict with the federal Const. and laws (which it IS contrary to the federal 2A, BUT who wants to try to win in court on that basis right now?). So, the state Const. can be read, in various places, to act either as a limit on what the legislature can do, OR as a flat-out imperative or prohibition on certain things. And here, it's pretty obvious to me at least that this phrase:

"...but this shall not be construed as to allow the carrying of concealed weapons"

afte the citation of the RKBA, can be seen as POSSIBLY a flat-out imperative (similar to the liquor prohibition of the 1920s - not a limitation of gov't power, but a factual imperative law), but even if it's not an imperative statement, it does seem to be at a minimum a limitation on what the legislature can do (i.e. "[the legislature can pass laws to preserve and protect this right, but] can not allow the carrying of concealed weapons" - this is one reasonable inference - bottom line, it supports the plaintiffs at worst, and is "clearly ambiguous" at best and needs to be interpreted by the state SC - the defendants/supporters of RKBA have just as much of an interest in getting this snafu settled for good as the plaintiffs do).

Too bad, but the end should come out well. The only reeeealy bad outcome would be extreme legal weaseling by the supreme court of the state, wherein they say that somehow LEOs are exempted from the provision, but CCW law is not. :scrutiny:

Jim March
October 27, 2003, 08:09 PM
I disagree with your reading:

"but this shall not be construed as to allow the carrying of concealed weapons"

Look at what was before the "but" - the right to keep and bear arms.

So taken all together, the translation is:

"This constitution gives the right to keep and bear arms, but it does not at the same time give CCW rights and you better not claim it does - for those, you're going to have to go talk to the legislature."

See, THE CONSTITUTION doesn't justify CCW. That doesn't mean the legislature can't.

For that matter, there's all kinds of things we can do with legislative support that we don't have a constitutional right to. According to the courts, drive a car is one!

Pendragon
October 28, 2003, 12:40 AM
It does not say it forbids CCW either.

Lets say they wrote that phrase on the Hand Gun Safety Certificate in California.

The cert says "blah blah blah, you can buy a gun...."

and at the bottom, it says "but this shall not be construed as to allow the carrying of concealed weapons".

Would anyone take that as an absolute prohibition of CCW by any person holding that certificate? I think not.

The purpose of the cert is to "allow" :rolleyes: people to buy and or own a gun. CCW is beyond the scope and is a "privlidge" :rolleyes: that must be obtained ( :rolleyes: ) seperately.

I think you can honestly read that phrase not as a prohibition - the language is not clear enough or strong enough. When lawmakers want to disallow something, they use words like "prohibit, ban, etc". If they don't, they ought.

If the phrase is meant to completely ban the practice of carrying concealed arms within the entire state, by all people private and in public capacity, then they did a very poor job of constructing that prohibition.

A good judge will declare that the phrase simply clarifies that it is not an express license to allow the carry of concealed arms. It is simply too vague and imprecise to utterly ban a practice that has widespread public and private utility.

Once the judge does that, the plaintiff should feel free to invoke the constitutional ammendment procedures or have a state legislator write and pass a bill to ban private CCW.

If you enjoyed reading about "19th century lawyer is big gun in concealed carry battle" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!