45 Carry
Member
Today is the day the Missouri Supreme Court hears arguments about the constitutionality of Missouri's CCW law. Post is you here any news.
Missouri CCW
- Thread starter 45 Carry
- Start date
- Status
dave5339
Member
Please keep us cube bound people updated!
Semper Fi
Semper Fi
El Tejon
Member
Best wishes for our friends in the Mighty Mo.
bogie
Member
Looks like nothing is going until 2:00 central...
shootist2121
Member
I hope yu guys realize that a decision today is highly unlikely...The SC has 60 days to mull over the arguements that are presented today..I be very surprise if the court does anything today except hear the arguements.
Boy i pray I'm wrong..They really just need to say the laws is good to go.
Be safe
Boy i pray I'm wrong..They really just need to say the laws is good to go.
Be safe
45 Carry
Member
New Mexico took just 30 minutes to decide.
I realize that a decision today is highly unlikely but I can dream can't I? Hopefully it doesn't take the entire 60 days. I am hoping they decide either today or tomorrow. My birthday is Sunday and I would like to be able to carry on my B-day.
clipse
Hopefully it doesn't take the entire 60 days. I am hoping they decide either today or tomorrow. My birthday is Sunday and I would like to be able to carry on my B-day.clipse
What Channel 4 in Kansas City is reporting:
http://www.wdaftv4.com/
MO Supreme Court Hears Conceal & Carry Arguments
Jefferson City, MO - Missouri Supreme Court judges question whether a new law allowing hidden guns is unconstitutional. A hearing Thursday afternoon dealt with the state's challenge of a St. Louis judge's ruling that the law violates a section of the state constitution.
At the hearing judges peppered an attorney representing concealed gun opponents to explain how the interpretation can hold true. They also focused on a claim by the plaintiff that the new law violates a constitutional ban on unfunded mandates to local governments. The plaintiff has said the law incorrectly imposes new duties without providing enough funding.
There's no indication when the state's highest court might have a decision.
Enacted when legislators overrode Gov. Bob Holden's veto Sept. 11, the law allows Missourians age 23 and older to receive concealed gun permits from their local sheriffs after passing criminal background checks, firearms training courses and paying a fee of up to $100. Permit holders also could carry other concealed weapons, such as knives, but would be barred from taking their weapons into certain places, including anywhere that posts a forbidding sign.
A St. Louis judge blocked the law on Oct. 10 -- one day before its effective date -- on grounds it violated a constitutional section stating: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." The judge, siding with concealed gun opponents, interpreted the provision as an outright prohibition on concealed guns.
Gun rights groups and the attorney general's office, which is defending the law, contend the language means only there is no inherent right to concealed guns, implying the Legislature can either allow or prohibit them.
http://www.wdaftv4.com/
MO Supreme Court Hears Conceal & Carry Arguments
Jefferson City, MO - Missouri Supreme Court judges question whether a new law allowing hidden guns is unconstitutional. A hearing Thursday afternoon dealt with the state's challenge of a St. Louis judge's ruling that the law violates a section of the state constitution.
At the hearing judges peppered an attorney representing concealed gun opponents to explain how the interpretation can hold true. They also focused on a claim by the plaintiff that the new law violates a constitutional ban on unfunded mandates to local governments. The plaintiff has said the law incorrectly imposes new duties without providing enough funding.
There's no indication when the state's highest court might have a decision.
Enacted when legislators overrode Gov. Bob Holden's veto Sept. 11, the law allows Missourians age 23 and older to receive concealed gun permits from their local sheriffs after passing criminal background checks, firearms training courses and paying a fee of up to $100. Permit holders also could carry other concealed weapons, such as knives, but would be barred from taking their weapons into certain places, including anywhere that posts a forbidding sign.
A St. Louis judge blocked the law on Oct. 10 -- one day before its effective date -- on grounds it violated a constitutional section stating: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." The judge, siding with concealed gun opponents, interpreted the provision as an outright prohibition on concealed guns.
Gun rights groups and the attorney general's office, which is defending the law, contend the language means only there is no inherent right to concealed guns, implying the Legislature can either allow or prohibit them.
greyhound
Member
Good luck to y'all, if it can happen there maybe it can someday here!
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Stall.
revlar
Member
It sounds as though the sticking point is our Hancock Amendment which prohibits unfunded mandates. Certain language in the new CCW law seems to indicate that the expenditure of the application fees is to be limited to training and equipment acquisition for the department.
Hopefully, the court will choose to simply strike that phrase in the law. But there is a possibility that the court will allow certain counties to "opt out" of issuing licenses for lack of funding. Heaven help those of us who live in one of those counties. I guess a Florida permit will then be the only option.
The first "official" date for issuing a decision is 1/27.
Hopefully, the court will choose to simply strike that phrase in the law. But there is a possibility that the court will allow certain counties to "opt out" of issuing licenses for lack of funding. Heaven help those of us who live in one of those counties. I guess a Florida permit will then be the only option.
The first "official" date for issuing a decision is 1/27.
Kamicosmos
Member
I've been following it over at missouricarry.com
Apparently this hancock thing is more so a county can 'opt-out' of a program if they feel they can't financial fund it. I guess the debate is if one county opts-out, does that mean you can't carry in that county? Which, of course, brings up all kinds of complications.
But, sounds to me like if a county says 'We ain't doing it" the citizens should be allowed to go to another county and have the permit issued there, since the state law will allow CCW shall issue.
I'm glad to hear that at least the arguing over the Constitution seemed to be short. Anyone know what was said about that?
I'm hoping this is resolved quickly so I can schedule my training class...
Apparently this hancock thing is more so a county can 'opt-out' of a program if they feel they can't financial fund it. I guess the debate is if one county opts-out, does that mean you can't carry in that county? Which, of course, brings up all kinds of complications.
But, sounds to me like if a county says 'We ain't doing it" the citizens should be allowed to go to another county and have the permit issued there, since the state law will allow CCW shall issue.
I'm glad to hear that at least the arguing over the Constitution seemed to be short. Anyone know what was said about that?
I'm hoping this is resolved quickly so I can schedule my training class...
Well i also just posted some thoughts over there. If they can strike that single line from the law than i think they would do that, rather than let counties opt out. If they can in fact strike a single line, i think thats good news for us. They spent almost no time on the constitutionality issue, meaning they had their minds made up already. If their minds were made up to rule against us then there isnt much of a point in asking a bunch of stuff about the hancock amendment.
If a county Sheriffs Dept. decides to opt out then all that means is that you won't be able to get a permit in that county. Carrying in that county would still be legal if you have a permit from another county or state.
I intend on getting a Florida permit either way. Since I am turning 22 this Sunday I will still have another year before I can get a MO permit.
clipse
bogie
Member
What is _really_ interesting is that it costs a bunch less than $100 to issue the permit. Which means it's essentially a license for the Sherriff to print $100 bills...
From today's St Louis Post Dispatch
If the lower court ruled the Hancock Amendment wasn't an issue, why is the Supreme Court looking into it. I find it hard to believe that the court might see fees of $100 inadequate, considering that across the river in Illinois, the state does a records check on every legal gun owner and issues them a FOID card for a whopping $5.00. How much do they charge an armed forces recruiter to do a local records check on an applicant? I would bet that in most counties it's free or just a token cost of a few dollars.
Judges question whether measure violates Hancock Amendment
BY TERRY GANEY
Jefferson City Bureau Chief
01/22/2004
JEFFERSON CITY - The Supreme Court judges who heard arguments on Missouri's concealed weapons law Thursday focused not on its public safety aspects but on how county sheriffs would be paid to carry it out.
During 30 minutes of debate, the judges peppered lawyers on both sides of the issue on whether the law violated the state's constitutional spending cap known as the Hancock Amendment.
That constitutional amendment says the Legislature cannot saddle local governments with additional duties without appropriating the money to implement them. Many of the seven judges' questions centered on whether the $100 fee the Legislature said sheriffs could charge for the permits met that standard.
The intense interest on the funding aspects of the law marked the latest twist in the passage of an issue that has been at the center of controversy in Missouri for more than a dozen years. Instead of a debate on the philosophical nature of public safety and hidden guns, the Supreme Court arguments probed the details of how 114 counties and the city of St. Louis would be paid for implementing the law.
"It's a long, strange journey to end up talking about fees, taxes and unfunded mandates," said Tim Oliver, a weapons instructor and a supporter of the law. Oliver said he believed Paul Wilson, the assistant attorney general who defended the state law, did a better job answering the judges' questions than lawyers for the plaintiffs who had challenged it.
One of those plaintiffs in the crowded courtroom was St. Louis Alderman Lyda Krewson, who was accompanied by her son, Jack, 11.
"We think our arguments are very persuasive," said Krewson, 28th Ward. "My son thinks we won. We will have to wait and see. It's a complicated issue with a lot of emotion. We are optimistic."
Krewson's husband, Jeffrey, was killed in a carjacking attempt in the Central West End in 1995. Krewson and her two children were in the car at the time of the attack.
The Legislature approved the concealed weapons law on Sept. 11 over Gov. Bob Holden's veto. It allows citizens who meet certain conditions to carry hidden guns. Sheriffs would issue the permits to those who had qualified. Missouri voters rejected a similar law in April 1999, the only time the public has decided the issue in a statewide vote.
The concealed weapons law was to go into effect Oct. 11. After plaintiffs challenged the law last fall, St. Louis Circuit Judge Steve Ohmer ruled it unconstitutional and suspended its implementation. But to Ohmer, the Hancock Amendment was a nonissue.
Instead, Ohmer ruled that 10 words included in the Missouri Constitution of 1875 made the law unconstitutional. The constitution allows Missouri residents to possess arms for protection, but it also says, "but this shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons."
Burt Newman, the Clayton-based lawyer representing the plaintiffs, tried to present that argument to the seven judges. But the judges were more interested in the $100 fee and what the Legislature meant when it directed sheriffs to use it for "training and equipment."
"We are encouraged by that," Newman said after the arguments. "We are interested in winning this case on any constitutional ground. We want to stop concealed weapons from going into effect in Missouri."
Richard Miller, the Kansas City lawyer who presented the plaintiffs' case with Newman, said that if the court allowed the law to go into effect, there would be lawsuits in counties all over Missouri over the funding issue. Some citizens would sue claiming that their local taxes were going to pay for processing permits, Miller said.
State Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California and sponsor of the concealed weapons bill, said he was confident it would be upheld on all constitutional grounds.
"I have always said we would prevail," Crawford said. He said that the $100 maximum fee was more than enough money to implement the law at the county level. He said for some sheriffs the fees would amount to a windfall. Crawford said the reason the Legislature limited the spending of the permit fees to "training and equipment" was to prevent some counties from spending it on roads or other uses.
"The legislative intent was for the extra money to stay with the sheriffs," Crawford said.
It is difficult to predict when the court might rule. Usually it takes 60 to 90 days for a decision to be handed down. But cases have turned around in one day. The court agreed to expedite the concealed weapons case, and a decision could be ready sooner than usual.
The packed courtroom Thursday was a reflection of the intense interest in the gun issue. For the first time in the memory of a veteran court clerk, court officials used tickets obtained in advance to assign seats in the courtroom where the arguments were heard. For the overflow crowd, people could watch the proceedings on closed circuit television in a nearby courtroom.
The crowd included lawmakers, attorneys from Holden's office, proponents and opponents of the law and former Rep. Harold Volkmer, D-Hannibal. Volkmer is a member of the board of the National Rifle Association, which filed legal briefs in defense of the law.
Written arguments defining the case had been in the judges' hand for weeks, and they were armed with questions. The grilling began quickly after the lawyers started presenting their sides. All seven judges asked at least one question, sometimes stepping on each other or interrupting the lawyers. Each side got 15 minutes.
In addition to the funding issue, the questions centered on whether more evidence should have been collected in the case, whether the case should have been argued in St. Louis to start with and why was there no testimony from St. Louis Sheriff Jim Murphy.
Wilson, the deputy chief of staff for Attorney General Jay Nixon, practiced in the courtroom on Wednesday during a mock trial. He was prepared for many of the judges' questions about the Hancock issue.
Wilson said no one could draw any inferences from the questions the judges asked or didn't ask. He said he believed his case defending the law was very well argued.
"The judges went right to the issues," Wilson said. "That's as good as an oral argument can be."
Reporter Terry Ganey
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 573-635-6178
If the lower court ruled the Hancock Amendment wasn't an issue, why is the Supreme Court looking into it. I find it hard to believe that the court might see fees of $100 inadequate, considering that across the river in Illinois, the state does a records check on every legal gun owner and issues them a FOID card for a whopping $5.00. How much do they charge an armed forces recruiter to do a local records check on an applicant? I would bet that in most counties it's free or just a token cost of a few dollars.
Judges question whether measure violates Hancock Amendment
BY TERRY GANEY
Jefferson City Bureau Chief
01/22/2004
JEFFERSON CITY - The Supreme Court judges who heard arguments on Missouri's concealed weapons law Thursday focused not on its public safety aspects but on how county sheriffs would be paid to carry it out.
During 30 minutes of debate, the judges peppered lawyers on both sides of the issue on whether the law violated the state's constitutional spending cap known as the Hancock Amendment.
That constitutional amendment says the Legislature cannot saddle local governments with additional duties without appropriating the money to implement them. Many of the seven judges' questions centered on whether the $100 fee the Legislature said sheriffs could charge for the permits met that standard.
The intense interest on the funding aspects of the law marked the latest twist in the passage of an issue that has been at the center of controversy in Missouri for more than a dozen years. Instead of a debate on the philosophical nature of public safety and hidden guns, the Supreme Court arguments probed the details of how 114 counties and the city of St. Louis would be paid for implementing the law.
"It's a long, strange journey to end up talking about fees, taxes and unfunded mandates," said Tim Oliver, a weapons instructor and a supporter of the law. Oliver said he believed Paul Wilson, the assistant attorney general who defended the state law, did a better job answering the judges' questions than lawyers for the plaintiffs who had challenged it.
One of those plaintiffs in the crowded courtroom was St. Louis Alderman Lyda Krewson, who was accompanied by her son, Jack, 11.
"We think our arguments are very persuasive," said Krewson, 28th Ward. "My son thinks we won. We will have to wait and see. It's a complicated issue with a lot of emotion. We are optimistic."
Krewson's husband, Jeffrey, was killed in a carjacking attempt in the Central West End in 1995. Krewson and her two children were in the car at the time of the attack.
The Legislature approved the concealed weapons law on Sept. 11 over Gov. Bob Holden's veto. It allows citizens who meet certain conditions to carry hidden guns. Sheriffs would issue the permits to those who had qualified. Missouri voters rejected a similar law in April 1999, the only time the public has decided the issue in a statewide vote.
The concealed weapons law was to go into effect Oct. 11. After plaintiffs challenged the law last fall, St. Louis Circuit Judge Steve Ohmer ruled it unconstitutional and suspended its implementation. But to Ohmer, the Hancock Amendment was a nonissue.
Instead, Ohmer ruled that 10 words included in the Missouri Constitution of 1875 made the law unconstitutional. The constitution allows Missouri residents to possess arms for protection, but it also says, "but this shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons."
Burt Newman, the Clayton-based lawyer representing the plaintiffs, tried to present that argument to the seven judges. But the judges were more interested in the $100 fee and what the Legislature meant when it directed sheriffs to use it for "training and equipment."
"We are encouraged by that," Newman said after the arguments. "We are interested in winning this case on any constitutional ground. We want to stop concealed weapons from going into effect in Missouri."
Richard Miller, the Kansas City lawyer who presented the plaintiffs' case with Newman, said that if the court allowed the law to go into effect, there would be lawsuits in counties all over Missouri over the funding issue. Some citizens would sue claiming that their local taxes were going to pay for processing permits, Miller said.
State Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California and sponsor of the concealed weapons bill, said he was confident it would be upheld on all constitutional grounds.
"I have always said we would prevail," Crawford said. He said that the $100 maximum fee was more than enough money to implement the law at the county level. He said for some sheriffs the fees would amount to a windfall. Crawford said the reason the Legislature limited the spending of the permit fees to "training and equipment" was to prevent some counties from spending it on roads or other uses.
"The legislative intent was for the extra money to stay with the sheriffs," Crawford said.
It is difficult to predict when the court might rule. Usually it takes 60 to 90 days for a decision to be handed down. But cases have turned around in one day. The court agreed to expedite the concealed weapons case, and a decision could be ready sooner than usual.
The packed courtroom Thursday was a reflection of the intense interest in the gun issue. For the first time in the memory of a veteran court clerk, court officials used tickets obtained in advance to assign seats in the courtroom where the arguments were heard. For the overflow crowd, people could watch the proceedings on closed circuit television in a nearby courtroom.
The crowd included lawmakers, attorneys from Holden's office, proponents and opponents of the law and former Rep. Harold Volkmer, D-Hannibal. Volkmer is a member of the board of the National Rifle Association, which filed legal briefs in defense of the law.
Written arguments defining the case had been in the judges' hand for weeks, and they were armed with questions. The grilling began quickly after the lawyers started presenting their sides. All seven judges asked at least one question, sometimes stepping on each other or interrupting the lawyers. Each side got 15 minutes.
In addition to the funding issue, the questions centered on whether more evidence should have been collected in the case, whether the case should have been argued in St. Louis to start with and why was there no testimony from St. Louis Sheriff Jim Murphy.
Wilson, the deputy chief of staff for Attorney General Jay Nixon, practiced in the courtroom on Wednesday during a mock trial. He was prepared for many of the judges' questions about the Hancock issue.
Wilson said no one could draw any inferences from the questions the judges asked or didn't ask. He said he believed his case defending the law was very well argued.
"The judges went right to the issues," Wilson said. "That's as good as an oral argument can be."
Reporter Terry Ganey
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 573-635-6178
The justices focus on the Unfunded Mandate portion of the case during oral arguments and questioning has me a bit worried, or it could bode well for CCW.
It could be one of two things IMO.
1. The MO SC majority opinion has anti-CCW bias, they know the constitutional language argument is too weak to use to kill it, so they're hunting for technicalities in the finance and unfunded mandate laws. They'll try and bury their anti-CCW bias by trying to build up a bigger paper tiger of "fiscal responsibility" making CCW seem like the secondary issue. That would allow them pretext to kill MO CCW without looking blatantly anti gun.
2. The MO SC finds the constitutional language portion of the anti's case so weak and laughable that they're focusing on the unfunded mandate and fiscal matters because that's where what little merit the case has is to be found, but will still rule in CCW's favor. They may want some boilerplate in both time, and paper, in the decision so it dosen't look like they made hasty a one-day "cowboy" ruling, insulating them from the anti's criticisims a bit.
It could be one of two things IMO.
1. The MO SC majority opinion has anti-CCW bias, they know the constitutional language argument is too weak to use to kill it, so they're hunting for technicalities in the finance and unfunded mandate laws. They'll try and bury their anti-CCW bias by trying to build up a bigger paper tiger of "fiscal responsibility" making CCW seem like the secondary issue. That would allow them pretext to kill MO CCW without looking blatantly anti gun.
2. The MO SC finds the constitutional language portion of the anti's case so weak and laughable that they're focusing on the unfunded mandate and fiscal matters because that's where what little merit the case has is to be found, but will still rule in CCW's favor. They may want some boilerplate in both time, and paper, in the decision so it dosen't look like they made hasty a one-day "cowboy" ruling, insulating them from the anti's criticisims a bit.
Last edited:
Kamicosmos
Member
It's sad how the article is more 'concerned' about public saftey issues than the constitionality of the law.
It's been proven in many many states that CCW is safe!! of all the pros and cons of CCW, safety is not one of them! They could at least argue that it doesn't have much impact on crimerates or something....geez.
It's been proven in many many states that CCW is safe!! of all the pros and cons of CCW, safety is not one of them! They could at least argue that it doesn't have much impact on crimerates or something....geez.
45 Carry
Member
MO Supreme Court
It seems that much of the hoo haa about CCW has turned to the Hancock Ammendment concerning unfunded legislation. Some sheriffs say the $100 fee is not enough to cover their expenses. Check out this article by John Ross in the WMSA's web site. It shows how little it will cost to fund.
http://wmsa.net/Rally2003/031024_packing_john_ross.htm
wmsa.net/Rally2003/031024_packing_john_ross.htm
It seems that much of the hoo haa about CCW has turned to the Hancock Ammendment concerning unfunded legislation. Some sheriffs say the $100 fee is not enough to cover their expenses. Check out this article by John Ross in the WMSA's web site. It shows how little it will cost to fund.
http://wmsa.net/Rally2003/031024_packing_john_ross.htm
wmsa.net/Rally2003/031024_packing_john_ross.htm
To answer a few questions...
Why was Hancock even brought up?
Because the antis won at the circuit court level on ONLY the Constitutionality issue. Just as we appealed our Constitutional loss to the SC, the antis filed a cross appeal on their loss on Hancock. This was expected.
Why was that language about training and equipment in there in the first place?
Because it was (is) anticipated that funds collected will far exceed expenses. The sheriffs didn't want the money to go to build roads or whatever, they wanted it to stay in the department. The language said that ONLY the sheriff got the money. The point was that he could use the money for other things, like training and equipment. At some point in the retyping process during one of the bill's myriad rewrites and revisions, the sentence ended up in its final form, and the plaintiffs claimed that it meant the sheriff *couldn't* use the money to pay processing expenses. This requires a creative interpretation of the English language, the same as their bizarre interpretation of the meaning of "shall not justify."
So what's the deal on Hancock?
Read the linked article above to learn about Hancock. Keep in mind that it is supposed to be applied on an individual county (or school district or whatever political entity) basis. One SC Justice pointed out that some counties may incur NO expenses from CCW, and that at least one sheriff (who I assume wants to get reelected) has pledged to do the paperwork for FREE. (The law says the sheriff MAY charge UP TO $100.)
The AG's office pointed out that the legislature will soon pass a law making cross-burning a crime, yet they are not allocating specific additional funds to give the police for investigating cross burnings. Investigating crimes is what they do. Similarly, sheriffs take fingerprints and request background checks for many people already. In many counties, the modest number of CCW apps will be processed right along with purchase permits etc.
For this reason I don't see Hancock as knocking out the entire law. There are 114 counties in MO and at least 113 of them have expressed NO interest in opting out. This law is a windfall for sheriffs and they know it.
The justices asked good, pointed questions of both parties, and I felt very good about the answers (I was in the front row of spectators, three feet behind Stephen Halbrook and the other members of the legal team not actually talking.)
The facts and the law are on our side here. Keep the faith.
JR
Why was Hancock even brought up?
Because the antis won at the circuit court level on ONLY the Constitutionality issue. Just as we appealed our Constitutional loss to the SC, the antis filed a cross appeal on their loss on Hancock. This was expected.
Why was that language about training and equipment in there in the first place?
Because it was (is) anticipated that funds collected will far exceed expenses. The sheriffs didn't want the money to go to build roads or whatever, they wanted it to stay in the department. The language said that ONLY the sheriff got the money. The point was that he could use the money for other things, like training and equipment. At some point in the retyping process during one of the bill's myriad rewrites and revisions, the sentence ended up in its final form, and the plaintiffs claimed that it meant the sheriff *couldn't* use the money to pay processing expenses. This requires a creative interpretation of the English language, the same as their bizarre interpretation of the meaning of "shall not justify."
So what's the deal on Hancock?
Read the linked article above to learn about Hancock. Keep in mind that it is supposed to be applied on an individual county (or school district or whatever political entity) basis. One SC Justice pointed out that some counties may incur NO expenses from CCW, and that at least one sheriff (who I assume wants to get reelected) has pledged to do the paperwork for FREE. (The law says the sheriff MAY charge UP TO $100.)
The AG's office pointed out that the legislature will soon pass a law making cross-burning a crime, yet they are not allocating specific additional funds to give the police for investigating cross burnings. Investigating crimes is what they do. Similarly, sheriffs take fingerprints and request background checks for many people already. In many counties, the modest number of CCW apps will be processed right along with purchase permits etc.
For this reason I don't see Hancock as knocking out the entire law. There are 114 counties in MO and at least 113 of them have expressed NO interest in opting out. This law is a windfall for sheriffs and they know it.
The justices asked good, pointed questions of both parties, and I felt very good about the answers (I was in the front row of spectators, three feet behind Stephen Halbrook and the other members of the legal team not actually talking.)
The facts and the law are on our side here. Keep the faith.
JR
It doesn't stop the antis, but that's not what's important. Yes, we'll always face nuisance suits like this one brought by antigun zealots. And yes, those antigun zealots may find a circuit court judge who agrees with their claim that black is white.
But when you get to the SUPREME COURT level, and the antis' lawyer refuses to answer a justice's question FOUR TIMES, it's different. It's different when the justices pepper the plaintiffs with questions that they CANNOT back up with any legal case law precedent.
I do not know the individual beliefs or political leanings of the MOSC justices. They may all believe CCW is a bad idea, just as AG Jay Nixon dislikes concealed carry. That doesn't really matter, because IMO they DO NOT want to set the precedent of encouraging any person with an axe to grind to knock out a law with a Hancock claim. This is the Pandora's Box no one wants to open.
JR
But when you get to the SUPREME COURT level, and the antis' lawyer refuses to answer a justice's question FOUR TIMES, it's different. It's different when the justices pepper the plaintiffs with questions that they CANNOT back up with any legal case law precedent.
I do not know the individual beliefs or political leanings of the MOSC justices. They may all believe CCW is a bad idea, just as AG Jay Nixon dislikes concealed carry. That doesn't really matter, because IMO they DO NOT want to set the precedent of encouraging any person with an axe to grind to knock out a law with a Hancock claim. This is the Pandora's Box no one wants to open.
JR
- Status
