Missouri CCW
- Thread starter 45 Carry
- Start date
- Status
another okie
Member
You can't predict an opinon based on the questions they ask. Sometimes they're deliberately really hard on the side they favor so they can make sure they've addressed all the possible counter arguments or so they look "fair."
An interesting point about that Hancock provision is that most of the big government types who would hate CCW would also hate Hancock, so the Missouri Supreme Court is really faced with a choice of evils if that is the big issue. If they strike down this law on Hancock grounds they will open the door to a lot of the populist, anti-government types of lawsuits that they undoubtedly want to discourage.
An interesting point about that Hancock provision is that most of the big government types who would hate CCW would also hate Hancock, so the Missouri Supreme Court is really faced with a choice of evils if that is the big issue. If they strike down this law on Hancock grounds they will open the door to a lot of the populist, anti-government types of lawsuits that they undoubtedly want to discourage.
Kamicosmos
Member
I had a thought strike me:
WHEN/if we get our CCW permits, will will still have to get the pistol purchase permit and/or background check it requires?
What about NICS?
Doesn't the CCW kinda prove we're good upstanding law-abiding citizens?
WHEN/if we get our CCW permits, will will still have to get the pistol purchase permit and/or background check it requires?
What about NICS?
Doesn't the CCW kinda prove we're good upstanding law-abiding citizens?
CasualShooter
Member
The short answer is yes.
The new statute providing for LTC did NOT eliminate or change the previous provisions relating to purchases.
You still have to jump through all of the same hoops for purchases.
revlar
Member
These justices are no dummies. Regardless of their leanings on the RKBA, they are aware of the firestorm of lawsuits that will result if they throw out the entire law on grounds of either the constitution OR Hancock. Like the rest of us, they are trying to reduce their own workload.
If they knock it down under the guise of "potential" Hancock violations - every Missouri taxpayer and his brother will sue to block whatever new legislation they may not like. If the justices knock it down on constitutional grounds - even THEIR right to carry concealed will be challenged in the courts (not to mention LEOs, process servers, Farmer Brown in the back 40, etc., etc.)
So whatever else the Supremes may be - they're not insane.
There ain't no "if" about CCW here in MO - it's only "when". And the "when" will be "very soon".
If they knock it down under the guise of "potential" Hancock violations - every Missouri taxpayer and his brother will sue to block whatever new legislation they may not like. If the justices knock it down on constitutional grounds - even THEIR right to carry concealed will be challenged in the courts (not to mention LEOs, process servers, Farmer Brown in the back 40, etc., etc.)
So whatever else the Supremes may be - they're not insane.
There ain't no "if" about CCW here in MO - it's only "when". And the "when" will be "very soon".
The Post Dispatch ran this editorial today
And it pretty much admits that the law is constitutional. It suggests that the next phase might be a constitutional amendment banning concealed weapons.....
CONCEALED WEAPONS Jack Krewson's battle
01/24/2004
IN THE EYES of a 11-year-old boy who has seen deadly gun violence, the issue of concealed weapons is simple. The Missouri Constitution says that the right of people to arm themselves does not justify carrying concealed weapons.
"If it's in the constitution, it's in the constitution," said Jack Krewson, the son of St. Louis Alderman Lyda Krewson. In 1995, Jack was in the back seat of the family car in front of his house in the Central West End when his father, Jeff, was shot and killed by a would-be carjacker. Jack accompanied his mother Thursday to hear state Supreme Court arguments on her suit to block Missouri's new concealed-weapons law.
Like many of those who filled the court chambers to overflowing, Lyda and Jack Krewson feel passionately about guns. But the legal arguments hardly touched on public safety or the right to carry guns. They focused instead on whether part of the law violates the Hancock Amendment. It is an ironic twist that the biggest conservative win of the past legislative session is imperiled by the conservative Hancock revision designed to hold down state taxes.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer agreed with Jack Krewson. Last November, Judge Ohmer ruled that the Missouri Constitution prohibits carrying concealed weapons. He threw out the new concealed weapons bill, passed in September over Gov. Bob Holden's veto.
Burt Newman, the attorney representing Ms. Krewson and others challenging the law, told the court that the key phrase - "shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons" - was added after the Civil War when armed bands roamed the state.
But Assistant Attorney General Paul Wilson countered that the constitution had never been interpreted as Mr. Newman and Judge Ohmer read it. The only sensible explanation for the language, Mr. Wilson said, was that it was added to clarify that the right to bear arms does not prevent the Legislature from banning concealed weapons, if it chooses.
Concealed weapons are a bad idea. And Missouri's concealed-weapons law is a lousy law so full of loopholes that people can carry guns into schools, churches and day care centers without being arrested for a crime.
Unfortunately, just because a law is bad doesn't make it is unconstitutional. Mr. Wilson's interpretation is convincing. The Supreme Court judges didn't seem terribly interested in that part of the argument. That may mean they already have made up their minds on the constitutionality question. Instead, they spent most of their time reviewing the Hancock challenge, which Judge Ohmer had rejected.
Under the new gun law, local jurisdictions issue concealed weapons permits for which they may charge as much as $100. By law, the money has to go into the county sheriff's revolving fund for equipment and training. That means the fees aren't available to pay the actual cost of issuing the concealed-weapons permits. Under the Hancock Amendment, the Legislature must fund any mandates it imposes on local governments.
Mr. Wilson argued that the law didn't have to be interpreted as blocking the use of the fee money for issuing the permits. But some of the judges were unconvinced.
If the court strikes down the law, or part of it, on this technicality, the Legislature could probably patch it up. In that case, opponents of the concealed-weapons law should be preparing a political strategy: a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban concealed weapons. Winning at the polls is probably the only way Jack and Lyda Krewson - and hundreds of thousands of Missourians who oppose concealed weapons - can prevail.
And it pretty much admits that the law is constitutional. It suggests that the next phase might be a constitutional amendment banning concealed weapons.....
CONCEALED WEAPONS Jack Krewson's battle
01/24/2004
IN THE EYES of a 11-year-old boy who has seen deadly gun violence, the issue of concealed weapons is simple. The Missouri Constitution says that the right of people to arm themselves does not justify carrying concealed weapons.
"If it's in the constitution, it's in the constitution," said Jack Krewson, the son of St. Louis Alderman Lyda Krewson. In 1995, Jack was in the back seat of the family car in front of his house in the Central West End when his father, Jeff, was shot and killed by a would-be carjacker. Jack accompanied his mother Thursday to hear state Supreme Court arguments on her suit to block Missouri's new concealed-weapons law.
Like many of those who filled the court chambers to overflowing, Lyda and Jack Krewson feel passionately about guns. But the legal arguments hardly touched on public safety or the right to carry guns. They focused instead on whether part of the law violates the Hancock Amendment. It is an ironic twist that the biggest conservative win of the past legislative session is imperiled by the conservative Hancock revision designed to hold down state taxes.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer agreed with Jack Krewson. Last November, Judge Ohmer ruled that the Missouri Constitution prohibits carrying concealed weapons. He threw out the new concealed weapons bill, passed in September over Gov. Bob Holden's veto.
Burt Newman, the attorney representing Ms. Krewson and others challenging the law, told the court that the key phrase - "shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons" - was added after the Civil War when armed bands roamed the state.
But Assistant Attorney General Paul Wilson countered that the constitution had never been interpreted as Mr. Newman and Judge Ohmer read it. The only sensible explanation for the language, Mr. Wilson said, was that it was added to clarify that the right to bear arms does not prevent the Legislature from banning concealed weapons, if it chooses.
Concealed weapons are a bad idea. And Missouri's concealed-weapons law is a lousy law so full of loopholes that people can carry guns into schools, churches and day care centers without being arrested for a crime.
Unfortunately, just because a law is bad doesn't make it is unconstitutional. Mr. Wilson's interpretation is convincing. The Supreme Court judges didn't seem terribly interested in that part of the argument. That may mean they already have made up their minds on the constitutionality question. Instead, they spent most of their time reviewing the Hancock challenge, which Judge Ohmer had rejected.
Under the new gun law, local jurisdictions issue concealed weapons permits for which they may charge as much as $100. By law, the money has to go into the county sheriff's revolving fund for equipment and training. That means the fees aren't available to pay the actual cost of issuing the concealed-weapons permits. Under the Hancock Amendment, the Legislature must fund any mandates it imposes on local governments.
Mr. Wilson argued that the law didn't have to be interpreted as blocking the use of the fee money for issuing the permits. But some of the judges were unconvinced.
If the court strikes down the law, or part of it, on this technicality, the Legislature could probably patch it up. In that case, opponents of the concealed-weapons law should be preparing a political strategy: a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban concealed weapons. Winning at the polls is probably the only way Jack and Lyda Krewson - and hundreds of thousands of Missourians who oppose concealed weapons - can prevail.
StLGlocker
Member
You can count on a liberal rag like the Post Disgrace to trot out the 11 year old to pull at the heartstrings. "My daddy would be alive today if not for guns..."
No. His dad would be alive if the worthless criminal who murdered him had been stopped. If Dad had been armed, he'd have had better odds. The goblin had a long list of priors, too; had concealed carry been legal, it's possible he might have been stopped earlier, long before he crossed paths with the Krewsons. Who can say? As it was, they were completely defenseless, and it's a miracle they ALL didn't get killed that day.
Funny, isn't it? You never see the papers run an emotional editorial when the shoe is on the other foot, like the girl in CA who couldn't save her younger siblings from a naked, pitchfork-wielding maniac because the guns were locked up in compliance with the "safe storage" law.
No. His dad would be alive if the worthless criminal who murdered him had been stopped. If Dad had been armed, he'd have had better odds. The goblin had a long list of priors, too; had concealed carry been legal, it's possible he might have been stopped earlier, long before he crossed paths with the Krewsons. Who can say? As it was, they were completely defenseless, and it's a miracle they ALL didn't get killed that day.
Funny, isn't it? You never see the papers run an emotional editorial when the shoe is on the other foot, like the girl in CA who couldn't save her younger siblings from a naked, pitchfork-wielding maniac because the guns were locked up in compliance with the "safe storage" law.
-[bunp]-
Since the MoSC didn't release a ruling yesterday (28 January), the next potential release date is 10 February?
. . . darn -- it seemed from the courtroom accounts that they had pretty much reached a conclusion. And after New Mexico's swift decision . . .
*grumble**grumble**mope*
Since the MoSC didn't release a ruling yesterday (28 January), the next potential release date is 10 February?
. . . darn -- it seemed from the courtroom accounts that they had pretty much reached a conclusion. And after New Mexico's swift decision . . .
*grumble**grumble**mope*
CasualShooter
Member
Ditto!
NRA4LIFE
Member
I could not refrain from replying to this thread. For all of you in the St. Louis area, you know very well that there are parts of Ms. Krewson's district that are not very safe. I wish only that she could read this post. The most terrifying moment of my 40 year life came on DeBalliviere (sp?) Place right smack dab in the middle of her district about 13 years ago. I was bringing some groceries from my truck to my girlfriend's (now Mrs NRA4LIFE)condo when I was approached by a young black man with a revolver and robbed at gunpoint. I do not need to go into any details but for those of you who have never had a handgun pointed directly into your eye, you have no idea how that lingers in your mind. There is not a day that goes by in my life that I do not think of that incident and how it would have been different had I been able to carry.
Good luck to all of you back in MO. Keep up the fight.
Good luck to all of you back in MO. Keep up the fight.
- Status
