Today's ST. Louis Post Dispatch Coverage
High court will weigh legality of new gun law
By Terry Ganey
Jefferson City Bureau Chief
01/21/2004
JEFFERSON CITY - The meaning of 10 words in the state Constitution will be argued before the Missouri Supreme Court today when judges consider the legality of the law that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons.
The phrase reads "but this shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons," and is the language that St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer cited on Nov. 7 when he declared the state's concealed weapons law unconstitutional.
Lawyers who appeared both in support of the law and opposing it have appealed Ohmer's decision and will argue their points before the state's seven-member high court. The outcome of the case will attempt to resolve one of the state's most controversial and divisive issues.
The Supreme Court has four judges who were appointed by Democratic governors and three who were named by a Republican governor. However, the political affiliations of those who appointed the judges provides no way of predicting how the judges might rule. This is the first time the seven-member court has been presented with a case that seeks an interpretation of the concealed weapons language in the state Constitution.
The Legislature approved the concealed weapons law over Gov. Bob Holden's veto on Sept. 11. It allows citizens who meet certain conditions to carry hidden guns. Missouri voters rejected a similar law in April 1999, the only time the public has decided the issue in a statewide vote.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs who oppose the law say the language is a straightforward prohibition. Lawyers who are defending the statute say the wording gives the Legislature the power to regulate the practice of carrying guns.
When he issued his decision, Ohmer cited the debates of those who wrote the constitutional language back in 1875. The key constitutional convention delegate on that issue was Thomas Gantt, a St. Louis lawyer who later became an appellate court judge.
Gantt said that the wearing of concealed weapons was a practice, "which is fraught with the most incalculable evil" and "cannot be too severely condemned."
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs say Gantt's words "can only mean that concealed weapons were denounced."
Attorney General Jay Nixon's office, which is defending the statute, said that if the writers of the Constitution wanted to prohibit wearing concealed guns they would have used the word "prohibited."
"This provision merely acknowledges that the General Assembly and it alone has the authority to decide whether to prohibit concealed weapons and if it does so, whether to enact exclusions or exceptions to such a prohibition for certain individuals or circumstances," Nixon's office said in prepared arguments.
The law the Legislature enacted requires county sheriffs to issue concealed weapons permits to people at least 23 years old who have passed a criminal background check and completed handgun safety training. The law also allows people who are 21 and older to carry handguns in the glove compartments of their cars without a permit.
The law would have gone into effect Oct. 11 but was suspended pending the outcome of the court challenge. The plaintiffs include Lyda Krewson, a St. Louis alderman (28th Ward), and Alvin Brooks, a Kansas City councilman. Among the defendants is St. Louis Sheriff Jim Murphy, one of those who would be required to implement the law should it be approved.
The challengers of the law also want the Supreme Court to agree with points that Ohmer rejected. They say the law is also unconstitutional because the Legislature did not appropriate money to pay for the work sheriffs will have to do to implement it.
The law requires sheriffs to perform a background check and to fingerprint applicants, among other duties. Some sheriffs say the $100 fee that applicants pay for a license will be insufficient to cover processing costs.
Nixon's office has argued that the courts should give the Legislature the benefit of the doubt on constitutional matters, but lawyers for the plaintiffs pointed out that the people have already voted down concealed weapons.
"The state argues at length that great deference must be given to legislative enactments," the plaintiffs' lawyers said, "But should not more be given to the people whom the General Assembly is supposed to represent?"
Reporter Terry Ganey
E-mail:
[email protected]
Phone: 573-635-6178
