[Jeff White]

The Post is apparently willing to open the Hancock can of worms to keep the people from having effective means of self defense......And are you guys from the Show Me state going to be opening threads argueing over the terminal ballisitcs of the M2 Pineapple and the M67 frag grenades? Talk about fear mongering...did you know there is a dangerous loophole in the law allowing the concealed carry of handgrenades? I wasn't aware open carry of grenades was legal now? Do you have to hook em on your belt by the spoons or can you use a pouch and still be legal :confused:
Jeff

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Editorial+%2F+Commentary/AEE0225EF0F3949A86256E300070A9ED?OpenDocument&Headline=CONCEALED+WEAPONS%3A+Handcuffed+by+Hancock

CONCEALED WEAPONS: Handcuffed by Hancock

02/04/2004

THERE MAY BE A WAY for the Missouri Supreme Court to declare the concealed-weapons law unconstitutional without gunning down the state constitution. The law may violate the Hancock amendment's prohibition against imposing unfunded mandates on local governments.

That prospect emerged from last month's oral arguments before the state Supreme Court. Judges across the ideological spectrum questioned whether the Legislature had provided sheriffs with money to cover the administrative costs of issuing gun permits.

The focus on Hancock was surprising because lower court Judge Steven R. Ohmer had rejected that argument. He threw out the gun law based on another part of the constitution, which says the right to bear arms doesn't justify concealed weapons. That's a stretch, which may be why the Supreme Court judges paid little attention to his ruling.

The judges now must figure out whether the Hancock amendment, as they've interpreted it, invalidates part of the concealed-weapons law. Under that law, sheriffs issue concealed-weapons permits for which they may charge as much as $100. The money legally must go into the county sheriff's revolving fund for "equipment and training." That means the fees may not be available to pay the actual cost of issuing the permits; hence the unfunded mandate.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has suggested ways to interpret the law to permit the $100 fee to be used for issuing permits, but the judges doubted whether the court could go that far in rewriting the Legislature's words.

Even if those challenging the law win on Hancock, it is unclear how much of the law the court would throw out and whether the decision would directly affect more than one county. The Legislature could fix the Hancock problem with a new law, which could trigger a new fight in the Legislature.

Burt Newman, the Clayton lawyer challenging the law, argues that it is full of dangerous loopholes. For example, it permits people to carry concealed hand grenades or exposed firearms into a school or church, he says. And it would not be a crime under the law for someone with a permit to carry a concealed gun into a school, church or public arena.

If the state Supreme Court finds that the law violates the Hancock amendment, gun foes may get a second chance to persuade the Legislature that this poorly written, ill-conceived law is a danger to public safety.

[Mizzoutiger]

When I tote around my grenades I like to wear a full LBV. It helps distribute the weight evenly on my body. Plus, it's uber-tactical.

I also like to wear my k-pot and vest with that too. Now that it will be permitted, I think there will be a rash of criminals using grenades to mug people in St. Louis.

:rolleyes:

[Standing Wolf]

The Legislature could fix the Hancock problem with a new law, which could trigger a new fight in the Legislature.

Which would please the leftist extremist presstitutes no end, I'm sure.

[CleverNickname]

For example, it permits people to carry concealed hand grenades

Explosive destructive devices are illegal for non-LEO possession in MO, so I don't understand why they're so worried.

Oh, wait I get it.... Law abiding citizens will go through the trouble to to have their fingerprints taken, take a CCW training class, and wait for their permit to be issued, but then commit a felony by carrying around a hand grenade. That makes total sense. :rolleyes:

Now, if they come down to Texas, concealed hand grenades are legal here (theoretically). :evil: The $200 per device tax sort of puts a damper on that sort of thing though. Nevermind finding someone who'll sell you a live one.

[Chuck Jennings]

I have lived in NYC, L.A., and St, Louis, and I have found the post dispatch to be the most liberal "mainstream" paper I have read.

[chrisher]

OK, I've had it:cuss:

One day after the law was passed here in MO, these TROLLS:evil: decide to file for an injunction against it:banghead: :fire: My wife and I have been through the required training, incuring the monetary and time cost. Now, the TROLLS argue that HB349 violates the Hancock amendment. On the Packing.org website, John Ross (who was present at the MOSC hearing) believes that this argument won't hold. Someone else suggested that if all the MO Pro-CCW people got together and filed "Monetary Damage" Suits in Small Claims Courts, the Bad Guys wouldn't be able to respond to them all and would thus lose by default. I see this as a viable option.

The Sheeple actually believe the non-sense that's written in the Post-Dispatch. By saying the current bill allows open-carry into schools, daycare centers, etc... and that it's not a crime to carry concealed into these areas, is very misleading to the general public. And the issue of carrying HAND GRENADES...!!!??? Well, that's just 'straw grabbing' BS! I try to educate the un-informed about this subject whenever it comes up, but I gave up trying to convert. If TROLLS choose to remain ignorant, there's nothing you can do.

[tailgunner]

Chrisher,

Welcome, speaking of trolls, I doubt you will see Justme on this board.
JoeBlow

[chrisher]

Hey, Joeblow,

No, I don't expect to see justme:evil: OR attuir:evil: here. How about Aimhigh?

[armoredman]

Gentlemen, the concealed carry of any weapon listed on the National registry, including destructive devices, has been completely and toltally legal in Arizona since 1994, and not one assault has occured with a legal, (or otherwise, come to think about it), handgrenade, machine gun, gryrojet pistol, automatic cannon, etc. Our permit allows the carry of any WEAPON, and anything listed in the National Registry from the NFA of 34 is legal. BTW, we still have plenty of room.....

[El Tejon]

armor, you don't need a permit to carry Title II stuff in Indiana, unless it's a pistol.:D However, I have yet to carry my RPG-Cem' or handgrenades to the office.:rolleyes:

Geez, is this all they could come up with? :fire: Why not raise the specter of Biochem? If this law is found valid, then Miserians will carry anthrax and castor beans around with them. Think of the children! Geez.

Fight on, Missouri. Give them heck.

[shootist2121]

If the post Dispatch writers would take the CCW course they would learn that Churchs are off limits, Schools, Day Care Centers, Resturants which serve more than 50% alcohal, Polling places, Court, Police Stations, etc, etc, ...But that would mean they kne how to read the law in the first place wouldn't it....

I guess lies will always cloud the issue with people who don't want to know the facts or are to lazy to make sure of their source.

Just my two cents:mad:

[jayhawkbrian]

This is a letter to the editor I wrote after reading this article...


February 5, 2004

"I would like to know who the idiot was that allowed this misleading, errant and intellectually dishonest editorial to float to the top of the cesspool that is your fine publication.

Why didn't you just come right out and say that these law-abiding citizens who are willing to complete background checks, get fingerprinted and pay upwards of $250 for training and permits want to kill and maime all the children and old ladies in our kindergartens and churches, and only AFTER it is legal? Why stop there? Won't it be legal to carry cyanide or small nuclear devices into hospitals and police stations if this law passes?

Where does the Post-Dispatch draw the line when it comes to irresponsible journalism? Anyone who doesn't have the common sense to interpret your outrageous blatherings as nothing more than another ignorant liberal piece of garbage trying to instill their own fears in those whom you know are already ill-informed, thanks to your reputable publication, deserves to live in the dark when it comes to this issue.

Keep up the good work."


I would encourage anyone who feels the same to voice their opinions to the Post Dispatch. These types of articles are getting out of hand.

[AJ Dual]

Awww come on.

Why are you pulling your punches? Tell 'em what you really think!


:D

[Jeff White]

Does concealed carry law allow guns in churches?

02/07/2004

Regarding the Feb. 4 editorial, "Handcuffed by Hancock," I was disturbed to read once again Burt Newman's misrepresentation of Missouri's concealed carry law.

In fact, schools, churches, arenas and day care centers (just to name a few) are all places where law-abiding Missourians are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons. Anyone with Internet access may read the text of the law on the Web and see that Newman's characterization is false.

Newman also fails to mention that the Missourians he fears are law-abiding citizens who have passed local, state and federal background checks. They have put their fingerprints on file with the FBI, paid a $100 fee and taken a state approved safety course.

Newman fails to mention that in the 45 states with concealed carry, permit holders are more law-abiding than the rest of the public, and that those states have seen no increases in crime, accidents or other gun-related problems.

Finally, the editorial fails to mention that Missouri sheriffs' departments already conduct a very similar background check for $10. The notion that $100 doesn't cover their costs is ridiculous.

I would encourage you to review the experience of other states with concealed carry and stop your gloom-and-doom predictions. A quick read of the actual law would help.

Barry Brent Bean
Gideon, Mo.


The Feb. 4 editorial was another drive-by shooting at a favorite Post-Dispatch target, the Missouri concealed carry law. While reasonable people may debate the effect of the Hancock Amendment on the concealed-weapons law, the editorial was unreasonable when it used a blatant misstatement in describing where concealed weapons could be carried.

Burt Newman, the Clayton lawyer challenging the law, was quoted as saying the law "permits people to carry concealed hand grenades ... into a school or church." It is outrageous to publish the idea that anyone can carry grenades - concealed or exposed - in public. For the information of Newman and the Post-Dispatch, a hand grenade is labeled a destructive device under the United States Code, and even simple possession of one by the public is a felony under federal law.

While the Post-Dispatch may well publish editorials on gun ownership, the editorial staff must not print misinformation or repeat false claims about gun owners based upon fear or prejudice.

Ron Nerad
Spanish Lake