MO CCW injunction-Greene County's opinion

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bill S.

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
4
Location
MO
Well, I just visited the Greene County Sheriff's office in Springfield to apply for a permit to purchase a Bersa Thunder 380 that I have my eye on in anticipation of our new CCW law, which was to have taken affect on 10/11. I entered with somewhat of a chip on my shoulder, expecting them to confuse me with someone trying to apply for a CCW permit. I envisioned the smirk on their face as they would tell me that MO is not yet a CCW state, and had several rebuttals at the ready.

Instead, the man happily hands me the application and a brief set of instructions. A few minutes later as I turned in my application, I casually asked him "So, what do you think is going to happen with this whole concealed carry thing?" His reply was "We're all anxious to get this thing resolved so we can start issuing permits." At that, several people in the vicinity joined in, expressing their disbelief that an injunction was successfully filed. Missouri may yet have a long battle ahead of it, but it's great to know that my county is behind me.
 
As soon as sherriff's departments realize that they've essentially got a license to print $100 bills, they're gonna LOVE the law... I mean, are they gonna have to hire new folks? I doubt it - what's it gonna take - 10 minutes to do a records search, if that? That's $600/hour.
 
I was really impressed with the Greene County fellows (and lady) when I was by there earlier to get a couple permits. They are working hard to get ready to take care of the CCW applications. I think they are with us on this one. They also voiced some concern about the impact a ruling against CCW could have on their own right to carry. Lets hope LEOs across the state will start expressing such concerns so maybe the plaintifs will have to rethink their suit, or at least the judges involved will be aware of the possible impact of the suit on police officers.

GR
 
I work for Andrew County and everyone here in the Courthouse and Sherrifs office happens to be the opposite. They are all glad that the injunction is in place and think that the injunction saved their lives. :rolleyes: I try to keep my mouth shut and look forward. I have not found a single person in the courthouse (besides myself) that is for a CCW law.

clipse
 
I read in the local paper that one local sherriff said that $100 would not cover his costs for the permit process. That's a bunch of hooey.
 
I work for Andrew County and everyone here in the Courthouse and Sherrifs office happens to be the opposite. They are all glad that the injunction is in place and think that the injunction saved their lives.
Click to expand...

Ask those sheriff's deputies how they're gonna' like it giving up their own ability to carry concealed weapons (as when off duty or working under cover). :what:

The only point in question remaining to be settled in Plaintiff's Suit (the others were already ruled out) is whether the phrase "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" amounts to a constitutional prohibition against concealed weapons. It doesn't, of course; but if the supreme court should rule that it does, then the prohibition would apply to law enforcement officers and judges also since there is no exception for them in that same or any other section of the constitution.

Law enforcement officers and Judges presently enjoy the ability to carry concealed weapons by virtue of exceptions provided by the legislature in the same section of the statutes that was changed by the new bill to provide for LTC.

Soooo, if they win, they lose also. :neener:

Actually, perhaps its a good thing this suit was filed. It's frivilous and has no basis; but, putting down the challenge now should end it and avoid future such challenges -- That should strengthen it. And I will be VERY surprised if this isn't resolved pretty quickly.

In the meantime you can have some fun with those LEO's and Judges who support the Challenge to the new law by asking them how they will feel about having to give up their own rights to carry concealed weapons because, if the legislature doesn't have the authority to allow it for the rest of us then that same legislature doesn't have the authority to allow it for them either and the previous statute providing same would be struck down also. :p

Or to perhaps put it in terms that they understand, ask them where it leaves them if RSMO 571.030 is struck down in its entirity. No, you say? Well, there is no severability clause, so if part of it goes, it all goes.

Check it out here: <http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5710030.HTM> :D
 
I'm glad to hear that the county LEOs down there are more professional than the city LEO I had the displeasure to deal with.
A couple of years ago I had to serve a subpoena on an individual in Springfield, and, as is my standard procedure, I notified the Springfield PD. The response I received was, "Why are you bothering us with this? You're on your own buddy!". I courteously acknowledged my complete awareness that I was on my own, and repeated that I was not seeking any assistance from them. I was simply extending professional courtesy in advising them of my activities.
I suppose "professional courtesy' was a new concept to this officer.
Who knows? Maybe he knew the law better than most and was angered that I would be allowed to carry concealed.
 
Check out this excerpt from an editorial in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
The state constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, but states that "this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." However, just because the state constitution doesn't grant the power to carry a concealed weapon doesn't mean that the Legislature can't grant that power.

The wording about concealed guns entered the constitution in 1875 during the violent era of Reconstruction, when night riders terrorized freed slaves, and Jesse James and his gang marauded the state. A St. Louis judge, Thomas Gantt, explained its purpose. He said the practice of wearing concealed guns was "fraught with the most incalculable evil." But then he added that the words did not prevent people from putting a "pistol in the pocket or a bowie knife under the belt."

The most logical explanation is that the Legislature wanted to ensure the constitutionality of a concealed-gun law it had passed the year before to deal with the James gang. Judge Gantt seemed to say exactly that when he said the wording was needed because another state's concealed-gun law had been thrown out.

Attorney General Jay Nixon points out that no one ever has argued that it was unconstitutional to allow police and prison guards to carry concealed guns. Nor did gun opponents or the governor bring up the provision during the legislative debate.

Three gun opponents who posted a $250,000 appeal bond — attorney Burt Newman, St. Louis Alderman Lyda Krewson and Million Mom March leader Jeanne Kirkton — have shown admirable ardor. Ms. Krewson, who saw her husband shot to death in 1995, even mortgaged her house. If they lose, gun foes will need that passion to pass an initiative to change the constitution and ban concealed guns once and for all.
Click to expand...
You can view the entire editorial here: <http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...B1?OpenDocument&Headline=Winning+the+hard+way>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top