Missouri: "Gun law opponents demand more time in appeal"

[cuchulainn]

from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...=Gun+law+opponents+demand+more+time+in+appeal

Gun law opponents demand more time in appeal

By Terry Ganey
Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau Chief
11/11/2003


JEFFERSON CITY – Attorneys who successfully challenged Missouri's new concealed weapons law in St. Louis circuit court say they need more time to get ready for an appeal before the state Supreme Court.

Attorney General Jay Nixon wants the state high court to hear arguments on the case by Dec. 3. But lawyers for the challengers said today they can't be ready that soon.

"We need more time to prepare a proper and adequate representation of our clients," said Burton Newman, a lawyer based in Clayton. "We cannot meet the timetable that the attorney general and others have proposed because of the amount of resources they have."

Newman and Richard C. Miller, a lawyer from Kansas City, are not charging a fee for representing the 10 clients who challenged the concealed weapons law. St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer ruled last week that the law was unconstitutional on one of five points raised by the challengers.

Newman said that when the case is argued before the Supreme Court, the challengers will not only defend the point that Ohmer upheld, but also advocate in favor of the four other issues that Ohmer dismissed. Newman said time is needed to prepare arguments on all five of the issues.

One of those involves the state's "Hancock amendment," the constitutional lid on government spending. The amendment requires the Legislature to pass additional appropriations to finance new activities that are required of local governments. The Legislature did not pass an appropriation for county sheriffs to issue concealed weapons permits, but authorized sheriffs to collect a $100 fee that was supposed to cover the costs.

Nixon, whose office is responsible for defending the state statute, wants the Supreme Court to expedite arguments in the case. Nixon's office filed a proposed schedule that calls for parties to file written arguments and responses with the court through the rest of this month and for the case to be argued before the seven-member court Dec. 3.

"This plan puts the plaintiffs at great disadvantage," Newman said. "We will indicate this schedule is not practical for the court decide an issue of this significance."

Newman said Nixon has resources at his command that the challengers do not have. He said that in addition to the state attorney general's office, those defending the statute include two large St. Louis law firms: Sandberg, Phoenix and von Gontard, and Thompson Coburn. Those firms represent the Bulls Eye shooting range and the National Rifle Association.

"Two attorneys in private practice don't have those resources," Newman said. "You have here complicated constitutional issues before the state's highest court and the attorney general proposes they be resolved in three weeks."

It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide the schedule for hearing the case.

 

[sch40]

oh please

Maybe those idiots should have done some research instead of mortgaging their houses.

--thanks for the update, cuchulainn

 

[Augustwest]

"You have here complicated constitutional issues before the state's highest court and the attorney general proposes they be resolved in three weeks."

God forbid justice should move quickly.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...the attorney general proposes they be resolved in three weeks...

Most unarmed law-abiding citizens don't get three seconds when confronted by armed criminals.

 

[Werewolf]

As an aside - just what the HELL is wrong with the folks in Missouri when it comes to concealed carry?

After reading Unintended Consequences I figured that John Ross' characterization of the folks in Missouri was probably more poetic license than fact but from what I'm seeing regarding the CCW law there and the tactics used to kill it I'm not so sure now.

So what gives? In the face of all the evidence that proves CCW doesn't lead to anarchy - why the vehement opposition?

 

[bogie]

Well, I'll just go ahead and say it.

Missouri is the most backwards-assed racially segregated state I've EVER lived in. And I grew up in both the north and the south.

When Missouri proponents of HCI, etc., say that they "want to keep guns out of the wrong hands," they're referring to hands that are black. They actually voted down a mass transit expansion because people thought that criminals from the predominantly black "city" would come out to their West County and St. Charles havens.

 

[StLGlocker]

They started this absurd fight, but now all of a sudden they can't adequately defend their position without more time to prepare.

Just another tactic to stall the law as long as possible.

 

[Crownvicman]

You know, the enlightened liberals are owed special treatment

 

[Leatherneck]

So the vital constitutional question in Missouri today is whether having the user (licensee) pay direct costs to each Sherrif is tantamount to a constitutional violation because all the money is supposed to come from the state. Do I have this right?

Words fail me...



TC
TFL Survivor

 

[Missouri Mule]

The antis are a little bit like the proverbial dog chasing the car.

They got thier puppet judge to force it to the MOSC.

Now they don't know what to do with the car!


They are intelligent enough to know they have to make up some new lies.

The old ones are wearing very thin and the truth certainly won't buy the ruling they want.


I am counting on at least a majority, of the judges, having enough integrity to find in our favor.

I personally really need a good reason to regain some confidence in our states judicial system again.

It becoming more and more apparent to me why this state was split in the civil war.

 

[revlar]

The funding issue was never related to any valid constitutional question. Our "Hancock Amendment" (requiring a balanced budget) to the constitution does allow certain recourse for agencies incurring costs resulting from implementing new legislation. The agency must FIRST actually incur the cost to prove that the legislation has forced the new "expense" (which, of course, has not happened because the law has not yet been implemented). Three of the four sheriffs who testified at the injunction hearing flatly stated that they are confident they will be MAKING money - not losing it - from the license fees. And, ONLY the affected agency can make an appeal under the Hancock Amendment (no "interested parties" or "concerned citizens" are able initiate such an appeal).
All of this was made clear by the AG at the hearing, and the judge then disallowed the "Hancock Amendment" argument.

The constitutional question is whether or not the words, "this shall not justify...concealed weapons" ("this" being the stated right to keep and bear arms) as found in the Missouri Constitution prohibits the legislature from passing a law to "justify, permit, allow" or whatever you want to call it - the right to carry a concealed weapon. The challenge (and the constitutional language) is nearly identical to the New Mexico situation. The difference being, New Mexico's law had already taken effect. Here in Missouri, the antis waited until, literally, the last minute BEFORE the law went into effect.

 

[Frohickey]

How about we give them more time for the appeal if they agree to be held liable for people killed while waiting for a CCW permit?