Backers, opponents of gun law delay reaction plans

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- With the fate of the state's new concealed weapons law in the hands of the Missouri Supreme Court, those on both sides of the issue say it is premature to discuss what action they might take in the event of a ruling adverse to their respective positions.

However, the possibility remains that voters ultimately could decide the matter.

State Rep. Larry Crawford, the measure's sponsor, said he is confident the law will pass constitutional muster, and until the high court says otherwise he is holding off formulating a backup plan.

"I'm telling folks to be patient," said Crawford, R-California. "The plaintiffs still have such a weak case that we will prevail at the Supreme Court level."

The law allowing qualified state residents age 23 and older to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons was to take effect Oct. 11. However, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Steven Ohmer blocked enforcement, ruling the Missouri Constitution bans concealed weapons.

Attorney General Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has asked the Supreme Court to expedite his appeal of Ohmer's ruling and wants the high court to hear arguments Dec. 3.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, who include some St. Louis-area Democratic lawmakers opposed to conceal-carry, say they need more time to prepare their case and have asked for a Feb. 9 hearing.

Should the court opt for the later date, it could be spring before an opinion is issued.

During the years the issue has been debated in Missouri, opponents had never seriously questioned the constitutionality of allowing concealed weapons until the lawsuit. While several constitutional experts have called Ohmer's ruling flawed, no one knows for certain until the Supreme Court reaches a decision.

Should the court side with Ohmer, the obvious recourse for the law's proponents would be to offer a constitutional change clarifying the legislature's power to authorize concealed weapons.

Considering that both legislative chambers mustered the two-thirds majorities needed to pass the current law over Gov. Bob Holden's veto, the support could be there for such a follow-up measure.

However, a constitutional amendment would require ratification by voters, who rejected a 1999 concealed-weapons measure with 51.7 percent opposition.

House Majority Floor Leader Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, said he doubts an amendment will be needed.

"The piece of legislation we passed is constitutional," Crowell said.

If the law's foes lose in the Supreme Court, they may attempt to put a conceal-carry ban on next year's November ballot through the initiative process.

Jeannie Kirkton, legislative director for the Missouri chapter of the Million Mom March, said that remains an option, but the process of gathering the necessary signatures would have to begin soon.

"Most people are focused on the court issue," Kirkton said. "If it does go to a referendum, we would need to move quickly, and it is a tremendous job to do that."

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608