This is no suprise. We figured all along this is just a delaying tactic by
the opposition to push the inevitable off till sometime next year (they
would love summer, but settle for spring).
That way there is not enough time for the law to show there will not be the
"shootouts over grocery lines, and children being slaughtered in day care
centers" before the campaigns begin.
Otherwise this will be a non-issue in the elections next year if it goes
into effect now and the doom and gloom predictions don't happen.
As far as Newman and Miller are concerned in their "two attorneys in private
practice" against big bad Jay Nixon and the NRA whining....Too bad. They
should have learned long ago if you pick a fight...you better be ready to
fight...NOW.
>From: Mark Wallace <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [moccw] Article in Today's Post
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:21:59 -0800 (PST)
>
>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.
the opposition to push the inevitable off till sometime next year (they
would love summer, but settle for spring).
That way there is not enough time for the law to show there will not be the
"shootouts over grocery lines, and children being slaughtered in day care
centers" before the campaigns begin.
Otherwise this will be a non-issue in the elections next year if it goes
into effect now and the doom and gloom predictions don't happen.
As far as Newman and Miller are concerned in their "two attorneys in private
practice" against big bad Jay Nixon and the NRA whining....Too bad. They
should have learned long ago if you pick a fight...you better be ready to
fight...NOW.
>From: Mark Wallace <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [moccw] Article in Today's Post
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:21:59 -0800 (PST)
>
>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.