Missouri Supreme Court desicion handed down today!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The FL Department of Agriculture mails out the apps (go figure). You can put in a request on line and they'll have it out to you in a few days. I don't have a link, but you can go to packing.org and review the FL info - plus you can link to the FL site from there.
 
Btw, you folks afraid of Ron Batelle?

Your out of state permits are valid in the counties that refuse to issue, despite what Ron Batelle or anyone else says. I spoke with Captain Moran of the Jackson County Sheriffs aware as a person who's an Oregon resident, and has family in Jackson County who have out of state permits. I asked him whether or not my permit would be valid there as a 22 year old. According to him, yes.

I also asked him if permits that were posessed by my Jackson County relatives (Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania) would be valid. They said that is correct, and the court order as far as the Jackson County Sheriffs is concerned only effects the ISSUANCE of the permits by the county sheriff, NOT out of state permits, out of county LTC's, or car carry. They are all LEGAL.

I also warned Captain Moran that he needs to warn all of the deputies out in the street, along with the city PD's officers and stuff, that out of state permits, regardless of whether or not they are residents of Missouri, are facially VALID by state law. Moran understands this quite well, but I warned him that my family would be carrying on out of state permits, and that if I hear about them being harassed in any way shape or form, the lawsuits will be heavy. He understood.

Btw, *family* here means my THR brothers and sisters here. :)
 
NRA certified training course where you safely fire a handgun, DD214, blah blah.
What does this mean? Basically what we have to do for a MO permit, or could it be done cheaper?
 
If Missouri accepts licenses from any state, then those of you in Missouri (especially in one of the four hancock counties) should just get a PA permit. $20, no training documentation required, and it can all be done via mail. For the application, visit:

http://county.centreconnect.org/sheriff/license_application.htm

Once you send in the completed app and payment, you'll get the permit in the mail about a week later which you have to sign and send back to them. They'll then laminate for you and send it back, pretty quick turn around time. Based on info from packing.org for Missouri, your out-of-state PA permit is honored.

x
 
The problem is:

Out of state applicants must obtain and furnish a photo copy of license to carry from their home state if that state has license to carry provisions.

Missouri residents now need a Missouri permit to obtain a PA permit.
 
Last edited:
I had no idea a PA non-resident license was that simple to obtain! I'm applying now so I'll be able to carry in MO, where I find myself on a regular basis.
 
Out of state applicants must obtain and furnish a photo copy of license to carry from their home state if that state has license to carry provisions.

Well, based on what I read in the application, if you don't have a license from MO yet, then you don't have to provide it. Read the actual application and you'll see. it says on question 34:

34. DO YOU POSSESS A CURRENT LICENSE, PERMIT OR SIMILAR DOCUMENT TO CARRY A FIREARM FROM A STATE OTHER THAN PENNSYLVANIA?
(IF YES, ATTACH PHOTOCOPY TO APPLICATION)


I guess it's worth a shot, I haven't read the actual CCW laws of PA, but just based on the questions and instructions on the APP, you MIGHT be able to get by. If someone from MO does get a PA permit, let us know.

x
 
Ok, so it looks like the PA permit option for you MO residents is out since apparantly PA wants a copy of your instate permit. I wonder if there are any other states like PA where there's an easy to obtain out of state permit that doesn't care if you have instate permit or not (besides FL). Not that having a FL permit is a bad idea, but still an option. I'm from the good ole no-issue state of WI so I had no problem getting my PA permit, I'll make an effort to visit your state this year.


Oh, and I forgot, congratulations MO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


x
 
Well, even though the Supreme Court exempted them, Cpae Girardeau County plans top start issuing permits....

Exempt county plans to issue permits
By WILLIAM C. LHOTKA
Of the Post-Dispatch
02/26/2004


JACKSON, Mo. - Cape Girardeau County doesn't have to issue handgun permits, but officials said Thursday it probably will.

It is the only county in the eastern half of the state that the Missouri Supreme Court said Thursday is not required to comply with a new concealed carry law.

The court said the measure violated the Hancock Amendment in Cape Girardeau and in at least three other counties with figures showing administrative costs would exceed revenue from the fees the law allows.

Prosecuting Attorney H. Morley Swingle, an opponent of concealed carry, said he met for two hours with Sheriff John Jordan and agreed that Jordan would seek any additional funding needed from the county commissioners, who are expected to comply.

Swingle said he expected applications for permits to be accepted by Jordan's office as early as Monday. Jordan was not available for comment.

The law appears to be popular in this area, along the Mississippi River about 100 miles southeast of St. Louis.

Tom Beardslee, who teaches shooting at the Law Enforcement Academy at Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau, said a poll by a local TV station showed 89 percent of the residents in favor of concealed carry.

Twenty residents had applied for permits before a judge in St. Louis ruled the law unconstitutional in November.

Swingle said that while the law opened up the carrying of weapons, it did toughen one thing - it raises to felony status from misdemeanor the crime of carrying a firearm while drunk.

The prosecutor said he was especially concerned about the potential mix of firearms and road rage. He recalled one incident in which a man followed and attacked a woman after a perceived slight on the highway. "In that kind of rage, what would have happened if he had a gun?" Swingle asked.

Beardslee, a retired chief deputy sheriff of nearby Scott County, said five people signed up for his private firearms class Thursday in the first four hours after the Supreme Court ruling was announced. The law requires concealed carry applicants to get formal training.

He said 76 people had gotten training in anticipation of the law taking effect last November. Six were lawyers and many were business people, he explained, including a store manager who was jittery about taking receipts to a bank late at night.

"I think people are tired of being victims," Beardslee said. "This will give criminals pause. If they don't know what percent of the people are carrying, they might think twice at that ATM late at night."

Reporter Bill Lhotka:
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 314-615-3283
 
I think I've discovered the blissninnies next tactic to delay this....Miller is threatening to to sue sheriffs who issue permits....

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...egin+issuing+concealed+gun+permits;+many+othe
Some sheriffs begin issuing concealed gun permits; many others wait
By David A. Lieb
Associated Press
02/27/2004


JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Confusion reigned Friday as sheriffs across Missouri struggled with when, whether and how to begin taking concealed gun applications from residents following a complex ruling by the state's highest court.

Several rural sheriffs began signing people up for concealed-carry permits Friday, just one day after the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the Legislature's right to legalize concealed guns.

But many others -- in rural and urban areas alike -- took a more cautious approach while legal analysts dissected a second part of the ruling, which said the law could amount to an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate on counties.

The Supreme Court said just four of Missouri's 114 counties did not have to implement the law. At trial, testimony on the cost of implementing concealed carry was presented for those four counties.

Still, the court's ruling left a clear path for similar cost claims to be raised elsewhere.

The Missouri Sheriffs' Association, in a letter sent late Friday afternoon to its members, said sheriffs "should begin to prepare to accept applications." But the group suggested it would take several days, at best, for sheriffs to calculate the appropriate fees to charge applicants as a result of the court ruling.

Some sheriffs forged ahead anyway, taking applicants from the moment their offices opened.

"(The law) went into effect," said Carroll County Sheriff Joe Arnold, who acted after getting advice from his local prosecutor. "We're fingerprinting them and everything, just like it's supposed to be done."

In Lincoln County, records clerks put aside many of their normal document filing duties to handle first-day concealed gun applicants. By mid-afternoon, said clerk Kris Westhoff, 14 people had presented proof of passing firearms training courses, provided fingerprints for background checks and paid a $100 fee to the sheriff's office.

Among those was Dennis Hammack, 57, of Elsberry, who wasn't sure if he would carry a concealed weapon but wanted the right to do so.

"It's not about a gun-toting, Dodge City type of deal," Hammack said. "I collect a few guns. I like the mechanics of them, even if I'm not shooting them. I like to take them apart. ... Our forefathers fought and gave up their fortunes so we'd have this right."

Sheriffs have up to 45 days to process concealed gun applications.

The law requires them to charge a fee of up to $100 to be deposited into a local fund, which can be spent only on law enforcement equipment and training.

The Supreme Court, citing arguments from gun opponents who challenged the law, said that could prevent sheriffs from using the fees to pay for the background checks or the personnel handling the applications -- thus imposing an unconstitutional new duty for which counties were not receiving reimbursement.

The Sheriffs' Association suggested Friday that sheriffs should charge only the amount needed to cover the estimated costs of equipment and training. Anything above that could be challenged as excessive under the court's decision.

Yet because the reduced fee is not likely to cover the full processing costs, that too could be challenged in court as an unfunded mandate, the sheriffs' group said.

For now, sheriffs must find another source of funding -- other than the applicant fee -- to pay the $38 fingerprinting and background check charge to the state and FBI, the letter said.

Attorney General Jay Nixon has said the law could be fixed by broadening the uses for the money to include the full costs of administering the law. He plans to present specific language to lawmakers next week.

"We're trying to work with the Legislature to get language to them that can provide uniformity and predictability in this matter throughout this state, and not cost-shift the obligations for law enforcement," Nixon said Friday.

Warren County records clerk Denise Mauzy said she spent 20 to 30 minutes on each of the five concealed gun applications she processed Friday -- at a significant cost to the county.

"It's keeping me from all my other work," she said. "This is taking up almost the entire day."

Kansas City attorney Richard Miller, who represented those challenging the law, invited taxpayers in any counting accepting permits to contact him about a potential lawsuit.

"If (sheriffs) issue permits, not only will they be violating the intent of the Supreme Court but they will be putting themselves and their county at risk of a lawsuit," Miller said.


Meanwhile, some residents of counties where sheriffs were not yet issuing permits began looking for other ways to get a concealed gun license. Missouri's law requires residents to get permits from their home counties, but also recognizes permits issued by other states. Florida and Pennsylvania both issue concealed gun permits to nonresidents.

Gun enthusiast Mark Hughes of Columbia, who is the state Senate's communications director, paid a $20 fee and sent in an application Friday to a sheriff in Pennsylvania -- figuring he might get a permit faster that way than through Boone County.

"I've worked on this for 13 years," Hughes said. "The Legislature has passed it, they've overridden a veto of the governor, the Supreme Court has upheld it. ... This will at last give me the right to carry a concealed handgun to protect myself and my family."

------

Associated Press Writer Betsy Taylor in St. Louis contributed to this report.
 
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...nt&Headline=Gun+ruling+may+lead+to+more+suits

Gun ruling may lead to more suits
By Terry Ganey
Jefferson City Bureau Chief
02/26/2004


The Missouri Supreme Court said Thursday that the state's concealed weapons law was constitutional - but that the way it was funded was not.

The court's decision left so much legal uncertainty that Attorney General Jay Nixon asked county sheriffs around the state to hold off issuing gun-carrying permits until the Legislature fixes the problem.

In a 5-2 ruling, the court said that Missourians over 21 could immediately begin carrying weapons in the passenger area of their vehicles. And in all but four counties, people 23 and over who meet the law's requirements could begin applying for concealed weapon permits that would allow them to carry guns into many public places.

But the court said four counties - Camden, Cape Girardeau, Greene and Jackson - don't have to implement the law because the $100 fee set by the Legislature would not cover the counties' processing costs.

The court's ruling left open the possibility that lawsuits could be filed in each county over the fee issue if its sheriff issues permits. St. Louis lawyer Burton Newman promised fast lawsuits.

"Any county in the state of Missouri that attempts to implement the conceal and carry law will be challenged in the Missouri courts," he said.

Nonetheless, some of the state's sheriffs, such as Lincoln County's, said they planned to begin the process of issuing permits immediately. The sheriffs in St. Louis and the counties of St. Louis, Jefferson, Warren and Franklin said they will wait.

The court's decision threw one of the state's most contentious issues back to the Legislature in the middle of an election year.

State Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California and sponsor of the concealed gun law, has filed a bill that would clarify what sheriffs could do with the $100 fee that applicants will have to pay for a permit. He said he hoped the new wording would fix the problem pointed out by the court.

But eventually, any changes will wind up with Gov. Bob Holden, a concealed weapons opponent. He vetoed the legislation originally and could veto any changes to the law.

Holden said Thursday that he would use administrative action or legislation that would "help provide protections for Missouri citizens." The governor's spokeswoman, Mary Still, would not speculate on whether he would veto any changes to the law.

Proponents of the law praised the court's decision as a clear victory. Crawford said it was a "tortured opinion" but was positive overall.

"We are elated," said Tim Oliver, a gun safety instructor who has been pushing for passage of the law for years. "The most critical issue has been answered. The court said it was constitutional."

Oliver said the court's findings regarding the funding issue was "a little murkier."

"It's clearly a small part and not a big problem," Oliver added.

Jeanne Kirkton, an opponent and a former official of the Million Mom March, said the court's decision "hijacked democracy in this state." She referred to the fact that Missouri voters turned down concealed weapons in a statewide referendum in 1999.

John Thurick of St. Peters said he was ready to pay his $100 permit fee; he's already gone through the eight-hour training course.

"I want to protect my family against violent crime and I want to keep the criminal guessing," said Thurick, who works at a computer company.

The court's highly anticipated decision overturned a ruling issued in October by St. Louis Circuit Judge Steve Ohmer. Gun opponents challenged the law, and Ohmer had ruled that the state constitution said the right to bear arms "shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons."

Supreme Court Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, said the constitution's language meant "there is only a prohibition against invoking the right to keep and bear arms to justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

"Consequently, the General Assembly, which has plenary power to enact legislation on any subject in the absence of a constitutional prohibition, has the final say in the use and regulation of concealed weapons," Limbaugh wrote. "Accordingly, this court holds that the concealed-carry act is not unconstitutional."

However, the court said because evidence in the case before Ohmer also raised the issue of whether the $100 fee would cover the cost of processing permit applications, implementation of the law was enjoined in those four counties. They are: Camden (Lake of the Ozarks), Greene (Springfield), Jackson (Kansas City) and Cape Girardeau, where Limbaugh was once the prosecuting attorney.

However, the sheriff's offices in Camden, Greene and Cape Girardeau all said they would begin issuing permits soon.

The Legislature gave sheriffs the job of taking applications for concealed weapons permits. Applicants have to pass a background check, training and pay a $100 fee. The law says sheriffs may use the fee for "training and equipment."

The state's constitutional revenue lid known as the Hancock Amendment provides that when the Legislature imposes added burdens on local governments, it is supposed to appropriate the money to carry them out.

The legal question raised in the concealed weapons case is whether a $100 fee for "training and equipment" covers the cost of processing the permit applications. Ohmer had dismissed the Hancock claims, but the Supreme Court's opinion said it could be a problem.

Limbaugh wrote that it was possible that there would be other costs in counties for carrying out the law beyond training and equipment. If that were the case, he said there would be "unfunded mandates" and the "Hancock" revenue provision would be violated. However, Limbaugh also said that the issue was not ripe for a decision - except in those four counties - giving the Legislature time to fix the problem.

Chief Justice Ronnie White disagreed.

"I would hold that no Missouri county is required to comply with the act as a result of the unfunded mandate for which the state, and only the state, is required to fully finance," White wrote in a dissent. "Full funding means funding from state revenue, and the $100 license fee authorized by the act for county revenue is totally irrelevant."

In addition to Limbaugh, judges who sided with the majority were Duane Benton, Michael Wolff, Laura Stith and William Price Jr. Joining White in the dissent was Judge Richard Teitelman.

Nixon said that while sheriffs could do what they wanted, he would encourage them to wait on issuing permits.

"Our concern is that while the legal right may exist in certain counties, so does the legal right of those who muck us up with another hundred lawsuits," Nixon said. "There is a great and grave potential that jump-starting this process prior to our Legislature acting could get us back . . . in a courtroom somewhere arguing about the Hancock Amendment."

Lawsuits are likely

Nixon said the court's ruling raised the prospect of a "patchwork" system across the state because the same issues that had been raised for the four counties could also be raised elsewhere.

Crawford said he expected lawsuits, especially in urban areas where opposition to concealed weapons is high.

The law could be patched up with broader language that expanded the activities the funds could be used for, Nixon said. Crawford's bill says the $100 fee would go to "any reasonable expenses related to accepting and processing" of permit applications.

"If cooler heads prevail and we are able to work on language over the next few days and get that language to the Legislature, by Monday of next week, they will be able to move forward," Nixon said.

But putting the issue in front of lawmakers raises several issues. Both the House and Senate had to cut off debate and force a vote to pass the concealed weapons issue last session. Then, Holden vetoed it. Lawmakers overrode the veto in September. Revisiting the issue raised the same scenario, which Nixon predicted would happen.

"That wouldn't surprise me," Nixon said.

Holden said he still was opposed to concealed weapons and that they did not make citizens safer.

"This law should have never been enacted over the will of the citizens," Holden said. "It is poorly drafted legislation that will allow any permit holder to carry a weapon into schools, school buses, places of worship, and polling places on election day."


Provisions of concealed weapons law

To get a permit you must:
Be 23 or older.
Be a Missouri resident for at least six months.
Complete an approved eight-hour training course.
Not have certain criminal convictions.

Concealed guns may not be carried in:
Police stations, prisons, courthouses, hospitals, airports, amusement parks and sports arenas that seat at least 5,000.

Concealed guns may not be carried, unless exception is granted, in:
Schools, colleges, child-care facilities, churches, casinos and bars.

Permit-holders who carry guns to off-limit places may:
Be asked to leave the premises.
Be fined $100 if they refuse to leave.
Lose their permit for second and third offenses and face higher fines.



Concealed guns chronology

April 1999: Voters reject Proposition B, a statewide referendum on allowing concealed weapons, 52 percent to 48 percent.

May 2001: Legislature falls short of approving concealed weapons bill.

May 5, 2003: Legislature passes and sends to Gov. Bob Holden a concealed weapons bill.

July 3, 2003: Holden vetoes concealed weapons bill.

Sept. 10, 2003: State Sen. Jon Dolan, R-Lake Saint Louis, takes leave from National Guard duties in Cuba to return to Missouri to cast vote overriding Holden's veto.

Sept. 11, 2003: Legislature overrides Gov. Bob Holden's veto of concealed weapons measure.

Oct. 10, 2003: St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Stephen Ohmer rules that the concealed weapons law is unconstitutional. Ruling comes one day before the law was to take effect.

Dec. 18, 2003: Ohmer refuses to alter his ruling barring the concealed weapons law from taking effect.

Jan. 22, 2004: Missouri Supreme Court hears arguments in concealed weapons case.

Feb. 26, 2004: Missouri Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of concealed weapons law in all but four counties, which showed that the law imposed an unfunded mandate in violation of the state's Hancock Amendment.
Attorney General Jay Nixon asks county sheriffs to not issue concealed weapons permits until the Legislature passes language clarifying potential problems in the law.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Reporter Terry Ganey
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 573-635-6178
spacer
 
Of course the antigun Post Dispatch is saying It ain't over. No handwring over carrying handgrenades into schools in this editorial though....


It ain't over yet

02/27/2004


THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT'S much-awaited decision on the controversial concealed weapons law will please neither ardent friends nor determined foes of guns. But it was the right decision. It determined that the Legislature had the power to pass a concealed weapons law, but violated the state constitution because of a funding provision.

The complicated decision left the concealed weapons law in legal limbo. The law goes into effect in all but four counties - Greene, Cape Girardeau, Jackson and Camden - where the court had evidence that the law didn't provide the money to cover the cost of issuing gun permits.

But the permitting process could soon be halted in the other counties as well if opponents can show those counties also have uncovered costs. Clayton attorney Burton Newman vowed Thursday to do just that in any county that begins to issue permits.

Attorney General Jay Nixon asked sheriffs to hold off issuing gun permits until the Legislature can act. Meanwhile, a sponsor of the original law introduced a bill to fix the funding problem.

This throws the issue back into the political arena, giving gun opponents another chance to block the law. Gov. Bob Holden said Thursday that he still believes the law should never have been passed and that he'll "continue to look for opportunities" to make Missourians safer. One such opportunity would be to veto legislation fixing the unfunded mandate.

Normally, it would be unwise to refight such a divisive legislative battle. But the law's fine print was poorly understood before it was enacted - by one vote - over Mr. Holden's veto.

Proponents touted it as a carefully crafted law that protected people in public places. It's anything but carefully crafted. People can carry guns into schools, churches and day care centers without being arrested for a crime. People 21 and older can carry concealed guns in their cars without a permit - a police officer's nightmare. The Legislature would be remiss to fix the unfunded mandate problem without addressing such dangerous loopholes.

It was the Hancock amendment's ban on unfunded mandates that tripped up the law. The law lets counties charge for gun permits. But that money can't be used to pay all of the county's processing costs.

Mr. Newman says the Legislature will have to find scarce state money to pay for processing the permits. GOP legislators from St. Louis County, where 70 percent of the taxpayers voted against concealed weapons in 1999, may find it hard to argue that money for concealed weapons is more important than money for schools.
 
Gun enthusiast Mark Hughes of Columbia, who is the state Senate's communications director, paid a $20 fee and sent in an application Friday to a sheriff in Pennsylvania -- figuring he might get a permit faster that way than through Boone County.

Supreme Court Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh

Relative of Rush? ;)
 
Warren County records clerk Denise Mauzy said she spent 20 to 30 minutes on each of the five concealed gun applications she processed Friday -- at a significant cost to the county.

"It's keeping me from all my other work," she said. "This is taking up almost the entire day."

30 minutes x 5 is 2.5 hours. You are supposed to work for 8 hours. Thats not even 1/2 of the entire day. Public employees... lazy bunch of union workers.

And the article sounded like a hit piece against the CCW law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top