Missouri Supreme Court desicion handed down today!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jmcc11

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
163
Location
MO
http://www.osca.state.mo.us/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e?OpenView

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:14:18 -0600
From: "Tim Oliver"
Subject: LTC News Update 2/26/04 MOSC Opinion
To:

LTC News Update 2/26/04 MOSC Decision

FOR WIDEST POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION

At 11 am today the Missouri Supreme Court handed down their Opinion on
the LTC Lawsuit Appeal. The MOSC found in our favor, that the law was
constitutional on the Article 1 Section 23 issue that Judge Ohmer said
was clearly unconstitutional at the trial court level. We Appealed to the
MOSC on those (Article 1, Sect 23) grounds. The Opposition then Cross
Appealed (and was late with their filing) on all the issues that *they* had lost
on in the trial court. The MOSC did find against us on the Hancock issue
and said the funding prescribed by HB349 had a Hancock problem.

(Interestingly, Judge Ohmer, who ruled against us on Article 1 Section
23, and found *no* Hancock violation, turned out to be *wrong* [overruled]
by the MOSC on both issues.)

See for full details: http://www.osca.state.mo.us/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e?OpenView

The legislation to correct the Hancock funding problem is already
drafted and expected to be filed by close of business today with the Missouri
Legislature. Full analysis of the Opinion will follow by separate LTC
News Update later today and will be posted on the web site at:

http://www.learntocarry.com

Tim Oliver
LTC-LDF
 
KMOX radio just reported that the court found that it did not violate the Hancock Amendment and the vote was 5-2...chief justice Ronnie White wrote in the dissent that he felt the fee wasn't high enough to cover costs of administering the program. Nothing on their website yet though...

Jeff
 
I'm not Tim just posted an E-mail I recieved from him. Sorry for the confusion.
 
"The MOSC found in our favor".. Just what does that mean? Do those that went through the hoops now get their CCW permit? I don't understand leagl opnions that well and like plain talk.

We in Kansas are in the process of getting CCW and I for one hope this will help. What will happen now when a Missouri residen comes to KS with a MO legal concealed weapon? If KS does not allow it then how will that affect MO leagal carriers?

Juse some of the questions that come to my mind.
 
Plain language:

It looks as if CCW is now legal in all counties in the state except the four who showed that it would cost them money to carry out their duties. However, as soon as someone in any other county establishes that there are costs in that county CCW will become illegal there.

Not so plain language:

So I really think it's a defeat. New legislation will be needed to fix the Hancock problem. You'd think the Hancock issue could have been foreseen. That silly provision about paying the fees into the revolving fund is what has made the whole thing a problem.

A question I have, and I will have to read the opinion again and more carefully, is whether out of state licenses are now valid. There are no Hancock costs associated with reciprocity. The answer will depend on exactly which paragraphs of the law are held to be still subject to the restraining order. We may have a situation where a holder of an out of state permit such as me, or a Missouri resident with a permit from, say, Florida, may be able to carry, but no Missouri permits will be issued.
 
Chief Justice White was adamant in his dissenting opinion that the Court shouldn't have addressed the constitutionality of the act itself and only should have ruled on the Hancock aspect of it.

That would have left Ohmer's ruling as a precedent.

In other words, White would love to agree with Ohmer, but he's afraid that he'd look like an idiot if he did in a written opinion.

As it is now, Missouri is going to find itself in a strange situation where people with out of state permits will be legal to CCW, yet residents won't be able to obtain one, because I'm sure that the anti's will have someone in every county ready to file a Hancock suit once the permit process starts.
 
So if i'm reading this right, they said the law is good in all but 4 of the counties. Legislation to fix the problem is on the way.

Until then i guess its game on? I'm not in one of those counties, and i dont have the money for a permit, but does this mean people cant carry in those places or that the sherrifs dont have to issue permits?

Either way, great unexpected news today!
 
As far as carrying concealed in KS with a MO permit, that would be illegeal because KS has no recipricosity right now. I imagine that's why they are pushing ahead with getting their own CCW law. That's why this came up in MO in the first place. There was a law stating that travellers' could pass through the state with a weapon in the car, but yet MO residents could not.


All that said....I'm not sure if this is a victory. Hopefully we'll get some lawyer types in here to explain it, but it sounds like they do need to reword the law because of the Hancock issues...which I was under the impression that if you have to reword a law, then you're back to square one as far as getting through the legal system again for approval.

But, I (hopefully) am misinformed on that.

Either way, I am going to get a beer when I get home this evening and hae myself a toast!!
 
I'm puzzled(nothing new). In order to obtain a permit in Mo. does it matter where the applicant lives or where the applicant applies? In Tn. the process is administered by the same dept. that handles driver's licensing. Since a driver's license is issued by the state rather than individual counties here it doesn't matter what county you apply in.
 
In MO, we will have to apply at the County Sherriff's office of the county that we have residency in.

We also will still have to get a county purchase permit in order to buy handguns, even after CCW permits become law.

Which means, we will have to get background checks for our CCW. Another Background check from the county to buy a gun, and the NICS background check to get the gun from the FFL.


Wish they'd do something about all those background checks.... :rolleyes:
 
Well after obtaining the proper certification you would go directly to the sheriff's department. I will have to read the law again, but you have to be a resident of state/county (?) for so long. That may affect which county you can go to.
 
Discussing this right now on KMOX 1120 AM out of St Louis...
http://www.kmox.com/news/article.php?id=12461

Missouri Supreme Court Says Concealed Weapon Law is Constitutional
February 26, 2004
By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) __ The Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the general constitutionality of a law allowing most adult Missourians to carry concealed guns, but prohibited its enforcement in four counties where the court said it would impose an unfunded mandated.

The ruling could open the way for similar claims to be made in other counties, raising the possibility of a piecemeal enforcement of the contentious new law.

Enacted when legislators overrode Democratic Gov. Bob Holden's veto, 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.

The law also entitles Missourians age 21 and older to conceal guns in their vehicles without need of a permit.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer 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. But the Supreme Court overturned that ruling, saying the law passed constitutional muster on that ground.

Ohmer had dismissed a separate challenge that the law violated the so-called Hancock Amendment to the state constitution by imposing new duties on local sheriffs without providing enough funding to cover the costs.

The Supreme Court partly overturned that decision, but only in regards to four counties __ Jackson, Cape Girardeau, Greene, and Camden __ where evidence had been presented about the local costs. The state's highest court said the issue was not ripe yet for Missouri's other counties, where no cost evidence had been presented.

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
 
problems

i dont see st louis co issuing any permits..i think they will take nixons advice and wait to issue until they can do a study as to if it will cost more than the 100.00...i dont see this as a win for the bigger counties...but the big thing will be will it lead to being able to go to another county to get lisc..since it is a state lisc it shouldnt matter....time will tell....guess i will look into a florida lisc.
 
They'll include the cost of the feasibility study in their actual costs, I'll bet you.
 
The attorney (Newman) who challenged the law is on KMOX right now...He just stated he will file an Hancock challenge in any county he's asked to. He states that the decision does not make CCW legal until all Hancock challenges are met. I don't understand how they can say $100 isn't adequate. I'm sure they do records checks for banks, scouting organizations, school bus companies etc. for free or a nominal fee now.

Jeff
 
He states that the decision does not make CCW legal until all Hancock challenges are met.
Click to expand...
I dont think thats what the decision says.

Oh, and one of the 4 counties has already stated they will issue permits. Getting a free $100 for every permit is a heck of a deal.

Edit: Some stuff from missouricarry.com

Legislation has already been introduced to remedy the Hancock problem.

HB 1565 -- County Sheriff's Revolving Fund

Sponsor: Crawford

This bill adds the reasonable expenses related to accepting and
processing applications for certificates of qualification to
obtain a concealed carry endorsement to the permissible uses of
the county sheriff's revolving fund.
Click to expand...

(13) The case is remanded for disposition of the injunction bond under section 526.200, RSMo, and assessment of costs as defined under article X, section 23
Click to expand...
Bond money is up for grabs.

(10) Certain provisions of the concealed-carry act do not implicate the Hancock amendment, are not affected by any unfunded mandate under Hancock and, therefore, are not subject to injunctive relief. These include the reenacted section 571.030, which provides, for instance, that any person 21 years or older lawfully may transport a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, and subsections 20 and 21 of section 571.094, which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons in locations such as churches, courthouses and schools, with exceptions, and sets out civil penalties for failing to leave those locations on request.
Click to expand...
Anything that has no affect on funding is fine. No matter what they do they cant stop carry in cars, or people carrying with out of state permits.

This is just the general concensus now, nothing official.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Mo Ccw
Replies
10
Views
756
sch40
S
B
  • Locked
Missouri news from GCLA
Replies
0
Views
272
bogie
B
W
  • Locked
Re: [moccw] Fast track in weapons case sought
Replies
0
Views
441
WAGCEVP
W
J
  • Locked
MO CCW- An Interesting Post Dispatch Editorial
Replies
13
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
J
  • Locked
Judge Rejects Second Challenge to Concealed Weapons Law
Replies
10
Views
887
Wildalaska
W
Back
Top