[alan]

Effected readers might consider the above question, with respect to their own voting, and the issue at hand.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...world-headlines

[F4GIB]

Obsolete link. Always post a parapharse of the article. Now it's lost.

[alan]

Mo. Concealed Weapons Law Struck Down

Email this story

Printer friendly format

Top Stories

Man Who Helped Columbine Shooters Paroled


Coalition Troop Casualties, MIAs in Iraq


Study: Dioxins May Have Wiped Out Trout


Official Defends San Diego Wildfire Acts


Analysis: Wealthy Schools Get More Aid



By JIM SALTER
Associated Press Writer

November 7, 2003, 5:41 PM EST


ST. LOUIS -- A Missouri law allowing concealed weapons and approved over the objection of the governor was struck down Friday by a judge who called it unconstitutional.

Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer said the law violates a clause in the state constitution that says the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

The Legislature overrode Gov. Bob Holden's veto of the measure in September.

Holden called the ruling "appropriate," and noted the law would have allowed concealed guns in places such as schools, hospitals and day care centers.

Attorney General Jay Nixon, whose office argued in favor of the law, immediately appealed the ruling.

"We will be asking the Missouri Supreme Court to expedite this matter so we can have a full and final decision on this important public policy issue," Nixon said in a statement. He declined an interview request.

Rep. Larry Crawford, R-Centerton, the House sponsor of the bill, said supporters of the law expected the ruling and "knew that it was going to the Supreme Court either way."

The National Rifle Association, which intervened in the case, contends the constitutional provision is not meant as a prohibition against concealed guns. NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook noted there are already exemptions -- police can carry concealed guns, residents can conceal them in their homes.

"Ever since Missouri has been a state, the Legislature has decided when and where to either allow or prohibit concealed weapons," Halbrook said. "We will vigorously pursue this on appeal. You haven't seen the last of us."

Ohmer had granted a temporary injunction Oct. 10 blocking the concealed guns law, which would have taken effect the following day.

The law would allow Missourians at least age 23 who pay $100 and pass criminal background checks and training courses to get permits from their county sheriffs to carry concealed guns. It also would allow anyone 21 or older to conceal a gun in a vehicle without need of a permit.

Missouri voters rejected a concealed weapons measure in 1999.
Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press | Article licensing and reprint options

[braeske]

Missouri judges are appointed by a panel and then the governor, but have to face a vote every 4 years (I think four) on the issue of whether they should be "retained." It is extremely rare that a judge is not retained.

- Chris

[Standing Wolf]

It is extremely rare that a judge is not retained.

It was extremely rare for a Missouri governor's veto to be overturned, too.

[alan]

braeske wrote:

It is extremely rare that a judge is not retained.


Perhaps that is part of the problem, but then that is sort of up to the electorate, isn't it?.

[Sarge]

evidently.

Ohmer was appointed by Crash Carnahan, to fill a vacancy or so I have been told. He must be re-elected after that point. The sad part is that he will have no problem doing that in the liberal cesspool which comprises his judicial district.

[alan]

Sarge:

I would not swear to the following, but I believe that the admonition to the effect that "the people will get exactly the sort of government that they do not vote against", attributed to Thomas Jefferson rings true today too.

[Wiley]

If, as in Georgia, most Judges run un-opposed, you can't even vote against them. There is no 'None of the Above' box.

[alan]

Wiley:

How about write-ins??

[Sarge]

We get exactly the government we deserve. If nobody had elected Carnahan, he wouldn't have able to appoint Judge Orfice. Put another way, the price of being too lazy and gutless is to have tin dictators like this telling you that the laws passed according to the state constitution, by your duly-elected legislature, have no force and effect- because why? Your state constitution, that's why! This is so asinine that it's ridiculous, because according to what Judge Gomer just said, I, a certified MO. Peace Officer, cannot stick my Sig in the Fobus paddle when I run up to Wal-Mart for more targets. It's unconstitutional!

If the law meant anything to this judge, he would never have tried this in the first place. If the constitution really meant anything to him, he would acknowledge the 2nd Amendment as written- as well as the fact that it preempts those of the states.

He's a political lackey of the liberals who happens to have a black robe at this moment in time. Maybe there are enough good people in his district to send him back to chasing ambulances at the next election. Anything's possible, and the libs are getting slapped hard in places where they were getting re-elected 5 years ago. So I guess there's hope.

[braeske]

IMO, attcking the judge and the entire City of St. Louis does very little for the cause of CCW in Missouri.

- Chris

[Wiley]

alan:

I 'think' a 'write-in' candidate has to file 30 or 45 days prior to the election so that the Borad of Elections can verify that they meet the qualifications for the office and so they know who the write-in is if they happen to win. (There are a lot of Wiley's in Cobb County, GA.)

So it's not truly a 'write-in' but more a late entry.

[Sarge]

The city of St. Louis, and its attendant political machine, seems to be the only thing standing between us and CCW right now. Oh, I realize that some of the plaintiffs on the suit were from places other than St. Louie- we have our share of tin dictator wannabes here on the west side as well.

If I came off sounding like St. Louis was the only liberal cesspool in MO, and that's what you found offensive- mea culpa. But if you're upset because I said that it is one- too bad. Same goes for what I said about the judge. No circuit judge has any business issuing an injunction against a duly-passed law, based on a provision of the state constitution that gets ignored for cops, PO's and who else? Judges!

I'd have been happy to leave St. Louis alone, and forget it was even part of Missouri. Same goes for the judge- never heard of him until he stuck his nose in my business. But your problem is now my problem, which sort of makes it my business. We can all hope that it gets corrected in the near future.

[greyhound]

I confess that I am pretty ignorant about how the judicial system works in these cases, but it seems like every time what some would see as a "comservative" measure is passed in a state, some liberal judge somewhere can strike it down for the whole state.

How is it possible that one judge in one area can overturn a law meant for the entire state? Or am I missing something here?

[braeske]

Sarge -- my point is only that the issue has not been decided yet -- it will certainly be decided by the Missouri Supreme Court. And badmouthing the judge and the City of St. Louis is not, IMO good PR for us who want CCW in Missouri.

A columnist in the St. Louis paper wrote an anti-CCW piece and was promptly deluged by agressive and insulting nationwide e-mails. He then wrote a second column reprinting these emails to prove how nuts pro-CCW folks are.

I disagree with Judge Ohmer's decision, and believe that the Missouri Supreme Court will reverse it. If not, a referendum to change the constitutional language ("shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons") could be the next step. It ain't over, and IMO while the process continues it is harmful to the CCW cause to call the judge names and berate the entire City of St. Louis.

- Chris

P.S. Where do you live in MO?

[Sarge]

but I, like a lot of others, are tired of trying to appease these people. Playing nice seems to be getting us bent over at every opportunity. I'm hearing the rumblings for a statewide "Open Carry Day" up here, with the date yet unannounced. This itself is not without its hazards, because even though we have a MO constitutional provision that says what it obviously says, a bunch of cities have outlawed the carrying of firearms in the open- gee, isn't it in violation of the MO constitution for them to do that? Funny, such a violation never got a moment's notice from Al Brooks or his honor (see, I can be nice- but it hurts) judge Ohmer.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I for one don't think praising the emperor's new clothes is going to help us, either. If the black community had just played along nice like, they'd still be riding the back of the bus and going to second-rate segregated schools. There's a time for loud and vocal protest, and we're pretty well there in my opinion. You don't say "nice doggy" to a mutt that's chewing your pants-leg off.

The best plan is probably just to give the Supremes a little back-stage time, and see what kind of a tune they sing when the curtains open.


I'm about 45 minutes east of KC. Good luck on getting your situation in hand down there.

[braeske]

Sarge -- thanks for the response. IMO, the average urbanite or suburbanite is scared and ignorant of guns and only wants the cops to have them. So when the gun owners and pro-CCW folks get angry and belligerent it only makes the issue more polarized and "scarier" to these folks. My approach has always been a reasoned one -- when folks come to me saying that CCW is a bad idea, I calmly explain to them why is is a good one, or at least that it's not a big deal. The referendum three years ago showed how polarized this issue was, with the rural areas voting for it and the cities voiting against. It has become a very controversial issue, I'm trying my best to make it less so.

- Chris

[alan]

Breaske:

I live in Pennsylvania, where we truly have our own brand of legislative and judicial idiots, for instance, our present governor, who when in Philadelphia, was one of those who pushed the anti gun law suits that here, have since been outlawed. The concealed carry laws here were made sensible in the early 1980's, prior to that, they were problematic.

Actually, and here my observation is purely personal, I do not think that any sort of permit or licrense should be necessary, however I also believe that the commission of a crime of violence, while armed, should be a capitol offense, and I do mean capitol offense, where folks convicted are actually excuted.

Re the newspaper man, and the article he wrote, along with responses he later published, see below: "A columnist in the St. Louis paper wrote an anti-CCW piece and was promptly deluged by agressive and insulting nationwide e-mails. He then wrote a second column reprinting these emails to prove how nuts pro-CCW folks are", I've seen neither the original article nor any of the responses, however I cannot help but wonder as to the following. While there likely were some intemperate, poorly worded comments, there were also likely some polite, thoughtful, carefully composed rebuttals also. Do I get more than one guess as to which of the above mentioned our scribe saw fit to reprint, or publish? Do I need more than one guess. I believe that the answer is NO, in each case.

I had been told, many years ago, that the bible advised that "he who spoke in a quiet voice, shall be blessed. Besides, speaking in a quite voice, while the other fellow didn't, tends to aggrivate the other guy so much more." While your comments are quite probably on point, a great many people have gotten really tired re being shoved around by two bit politicans, whose oaths of office mean nothing to them, this conclusion based on their antics after election, combined with the output of "journalists" whose reaction to being faced with facts, is something on the order of hiding under the bed, whilst singing the song prominently featured in one of those idiotic television auto ads. The words go as follows, "No, No,No, No".

Some folks tend to get tired of being not only lied to, but lied about, and they therefore grow "waspish". While one should be able to curb one's temper, I haven't always been able to curb mine, the odd intemperate rebuttal to the "yellow journalism" that one seen re firearms is understandable. Of course, as you noted, it can easliy be twisted so as to make gun owners look idiotic. That Virginia, seems to be the way that that cookie crumbles though.

Re Republican Senators, Arlen Specter (PA) voted for the assault weapons ban, anbd used to brag about having done so. As to Orin Hatch, Utah as I rrecall, has been "wish-washy" on firearms. I would have serious question re him and firearmns, as I recall his actions, this notwithstanding his having lately come to see the light re Washington, D.C.'s gun ban.

[braeske]

Here's the article, if you are interested. I'm too tired to analyze it at this hour. :)

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/Sylvester+Brown+Jr./D2DEA3AEFE6F715086256DCD00391B69?opendocument&Headline=Backers+of+concealed+guns+are+armed+with+dedication+to+cause

- Chris

[alan]

Braeske:

Thank you for the article. It's later here, will read it tomorrow.

alan