MO Judge to hear arguments on gun law lawsuit

[Mark Tyson]

Hope this is not a duplicate thread ...

================

Posted on Wed, Oct. 08, 2003
Judge to hear arguments on gun law lawsuit
By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - A St. Louis judge could decide whether Missouri's new concealed guns law violates the state constitution. But he first must decide whether he - or a judge in the state's capital city - has the proper authority to hear the case.

A lawsuit seeking to block the concealed guns law from taking effect Saturday was filed Wednesday in St. Louis Circuit Court and assigned to Judge Steven Ohmer.

Attorney General Jay Nixon immediately asked that the case be transferred to Cole County, where most lawsuits naming the state as a defendant are tried.

Ohmer began hearing arguments Wednesday but continued the case until Thursday and made no immediate decision on the proper venue for the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims a provision of the Missouri Constitution dating to 1875 prohibits the wearing of concealed firearms.

That section of Missouri's Bill of Rights declares "that the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property ... shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste declined to comment about the merits of the lawsuit.

But the state is likely to argue that plaintiffs are misconstruing that provision.

Gov. Bob Holden's chief legal counsel and other constitutional analysts have interpreted the provision to say simply that concealed guns aren't part of the right to bear arms, and the Legislature - or voters - could decide to allow or disallow it.

"I would say that the claim being made by those who challenge the conceal carry law is relatively weak if they are going to rely upon" that 1875 constitutional provision, said Kris Kobach, a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who is also running for Congress as a Republican in the Kansas suburbs around Kansas City, Mo.

Yet to state Sen. Maida Coleman, one of 10 plaintiffs in the case, the language seems plain enough.

"The Missouri Constitution says that citizens should not carry concealed weapons," said Coleman, D-St. Louis, who voted against the bill. "Maybe it doesn't keep the Legislature from saying it's all right to carry concealed weapons, but I like the basic interpretation of it."

The Legislature voted Sept. 11 to override Holden's veto of the concealed guns bill, meaning the law automatically would take effect 30 days after the vote.

The law allows Missourians age 23 and older who pay $100 and pass background checks and a training course to receive a permit from their county sheriff to carry concealed guns. It also allows anyone age 21 or older to conceal a gun in a vehicle without need of a permit.

The alleged contradiction to the 1875 constitutional provision is the first claim cited by the lawsuit. But the lawsuit also makes several other constitutional arguments, including:

_ The law unconstitutionally imposes a new requirement on counties without providing funding to cover the increased costs.

_ The Legislature usurped the power of the people by passing a law similar to one that voters narrowly rejected in an April 1999 referendum.

_ The Legislature overstepped its police powers to secure the general peace and safety of Missourians by enacting the law.

_ The law contains language so vague that it is unconstitutional.

 

[Gray Peterson]

_ The law unconstitutionally imposes a new requirement on counties without providing funding to cover the increased costs.

100 dollar fee anyone?

_ The Legislature usurped the power of the people by passing a law similar to one that voters narrowly rejected in an April 1999 referendum.

Same subject different law, the Missouri constitution does not forbid the legislature from even re-enacting the exact same language of the laws rejected in a proposition, much less something that has different language.

_ The Legislature overstepped its police powers to secure the general peace and safety of Missourians by enacting the law.

There is no requirement of the Missouri Constitution to promote peace and safety (this is out of the Institute of Justice and Peace's playbook here).

_ The law contains language so vague that it is unconstitutional.

Outright lies. All of them.

Btw, the judge in St. Louis REJECTED changing the venue to Cole County, Jefferson city. This is a bad thing because activist judges who want to make a statement typically don't want to let stuff fall into another, less activist's judges heads.

Hold onto your hats folks: I think it's likely this judge is going to put a stop to the concealed carry law.

 

[StLGlocker]

The MO state constitution states only that the "keep and bear arms" right acknowleged by Section 23 cannot be used as justification by a citizen for carrying concealed. In no way does it prohibit the legislature from legalizing CCW with a new law.

Here's the full statement:

Section 23. 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.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

Anyone with a basic command of the English language should be able to understand that while the writers did not want concealed carry to be part of the overall right to bear arms, neither did they specifically forbid it.

If the judge rules in favor of this meritless lawsuit based on section 23, then he's legislating from the bench, not being an impartial arbiter of the law.

As far as funding the legislation, 100% agreement - what the hell are we paying $100 for, if not to cover the costs associated with this program? I don't see why much training should be needed. The Sheriff's departments process background checks and fingerprint people on a daily basis. The only extra costs I can see are for hired help to process the projected initial rush of applicants. Estimates are from 40,000 to 60,000 applicants in the first year - I can't believe that 4 to 6 million dollars isn't enough money.

The 1999 referendum and the 2003 house bill are not the same thing, and the "will of the people" is hardly set in stone. If I recall correctly, we voted a largely Republican legislature into office in 2000, partially because of their views on gun laws. 1999 was four years ago. Get over it.

The other two arguments are so laughable as to be unworthy of discussion.

 

[Bill Hook]

I hope he does, b/c, unless I'm mistaken, there is nothing to prevent these clowns from trying it again, were the case dismissed. The sooner the challenge goes through, the better.

 

[CasualShooter]

what the hell are we paying $100 for, if not to cover the costs associated with this program?

You're Right! Further, the new law specifically provides:

<http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills03/biltxt/truly/HB0349T.HTM>

50.535. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 50.525 to 50.745 the fee collected pursuant to subsections 10 and 11 of section 571.094, RSMo, shall be deposited by the county treasurer into a separate interest-bearing fund to be known as the county sheriff's revolving fund to be expended at the direction of the county or city sheriff or his or her designee as provided in this section.

2. No prior approval of the expenditures from this fund shall be required by the governing body of the county or city not within a county, nor shall any prior audit or encumbrance of the fund be required before any expenditure is made by the sheriff from this fund. This fund shall only be used by law enforcement agencies for the purchase of equipment and to provide training. If the moneys collected and deposited into this fund are not totally expended annually, then the unexpended balance shall remain in said fund and the balance shall be kept in said fund to accumulate from year to year. This fund may be audited by the state auditor's office or the appropriate auditing agency.

Ya know, we just gotta start teaching the English Language in our schools! :banghead:

 

[Standing Wolf]

The Missouri Constitution says that citizens should not carry concealed weapons

People who can't read should try to avoid being quoted in newspaper articles.

 

[CasualShooter]

It really inspires confidence when lawmakers can't read or speak english, doesn't it?

But, it DOES begin to explain why we have seen so many idiotic new laws. :banghead:

 

[chrisinmo]

These jusdges can read just fine the problem is that their cognative reasoning is a little foggy, probably fogged by the confiscated weed the cops bring in. Gotta love all the anti establishment socialist free love hippies who have entered our government and legal system!