Print

Email link

Respond to editor

Concealed weapons case ready for Supreme Court

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a case that could finally end the state's long-running debate over concealed weapons.

The issue has its origins in the 1870s, when Reconstruction-era violence and the lawlessness of the now legendary James Gang prompted state leaders to take action against concealed guns.

In more recent times, gun-rights activists have put substantial effort behind trying to loosen such 19th-century limits.

Missouri voters narrowly rejected a conceal-carry proposal in 1999, but the issue remained hot. Though it took an override of Gov. Bob Holden's veto, a concealed weapons measure finally became law last fall.

Within weeks, however, a St. Louis judge blocked the law from taking effect as scheduled on Oct. 11, saying the Missouri Constitution has a blanket prohibition against concealed weapons.

During the years of debate, the wisdom of allowing concealed weapons was frequently questioned. The constitutionality of doing so was never seriously raised.

At the heart of the dispute is the meaning of Article I, Section 23 of the state constitution. The provision, which dates to 1875, says the right to bear arms "shall not be questioned" but adds that "this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

In ruling for concealed weapons opponents, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Steven Ohmer said a speech by Judge Thomas T. Gantt, a delegate at the 1875 constitutional convention, clearly expresses the intent of the document's drafters to ban concealed weapons outright.

"The wearing of concealed weapons is a practice which I presume meets with the general reprobation of all thinking men," Gantt told the convention. "It is a practice which cannot be too severely condemned. It is a practice fraught with the most incalculable evil."

Attorney General Jay Nixon's office, which is defending the state law, argues in documents filed with the Supreme Court that rather than prohibiting concealed weapons, the constitution merely states that Missourians enjoy no irrevocable constitutional right to do so. Nothing prevents the legislature from granting residents the legal right to carry and conceal, the state contends.

Restricted in 1879

The state also points out that the legislature passed a law restricting concealed weapons in 1879. If the framers of the constitution had actually banned the practice, that still would have been fresh in their memories four years after ratification of the constitution, rendering the law without purpose, the state argues.

The statute barring concealed weapons has been modified numerous times since then, and the Supreme Court has affirmed such legislative actions in a long string of cases.

Attorneys for the gun opponents say earlier versions of the concealed weapons law were consistent with the constitution because they largely outlawed the practice.

The new law would allow most Missourians age 23 or older who pass a criminal background check and complete a gun-safety course to obtain a conceal-carry permit. It also makes it legal for anyone at least 21 years old to have a concealed weapon in a vehicle without a permit.

Although Ohmer sided with gun foes in declaring a constitutional ban on concealed weapons, he ruled against their argument that the law also violates the constitution's revenue-limiting Hancock Amendment. The plaintiffs are cross-appealing that issue to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs, who include some state lawmakers who opposed passage of the measure, contend the law is an unfunded mandate barred by Hancock in that it fails to provide revenue sufficient to cover the costs of processing applications and issuing permits that would be borne by local sheriff's departments.

Sheriffs are allowed to charge a $100 fee for first-time permits and $50 for renewal. However, the plaintiffs say that revenue is earmarked for equipment and training and cannot be used to pay for administering the permit process.

The state responded that the Hancock argument cannot be used to invalidate a law. At most, local sheriffs could request the court suspend their obligation to process permits until the state provided adequate resources.

The case is Alvin Brooks, et al., v. State of Missouri, et al.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608