Challengers of conceal-carry law seek to recoup their legal costs

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The legal challenge against Missouri's concealed guns law has long been resolved, but the legal wrangling continues over who should pay the bills for the court battle.

Attorneys for concealed gun opponents who challenged the law filed a motion Wednesday seeking reimbursement from the state for their unspecified costs and fees.

That comes one week after the resolution of a request from gun store owners who intervened in the lawsuit to be reimbursed by the plaintiffs for their costs and lost business. Details of an apparent out-of-court agreement are being kept secret.

Missouri's law allowing most adults age 23 and older to receive concealed weapons permits was enacted when the legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto two years ago. In February 2004, the state Supreme Court upheld the legality of concealed guns, but said the law's fee structure could unconstitutionally impose uncompensated costs on sheriffs.

Lawmakers earlier this year attempted to fix that funding flaw by passing new legislation, and every jurisdiction in the state now is issuing concealed weapons permits.

But the legal case has lingered in St. Louis Circuit Court, where it was referred by the Supreme Court to settle attorneys' fees and dispose of a $250,000 bond posted by the plaintiffs when St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Steven Ohmer initially issued an injunction against the law in October 2003.

The Bull's Eye gun store and shooting range in St. Louis, which offers firearms training courses required to get the permits, had intervened in the lawsuit and sought to be paid from the bond money. It claimed to have lost $300,000 in business opportunities while the injunction was in effect and incurred more than $90,000 in legal fees.

In April, St. Louis Circuit Judge John Riley rejected the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the bond claim. But Bull's Eye dropped the claim itself Oct. 26, and Ohmer ordered the bond money returned to the plaintiffs.

Bull's Eye owner Jim Stephens cited a "confidentiality clause" Wednesday while saying he couldn't discuss why he dropped his claim on the bond money.

Boone County firearms instructor Tim Oliver, who runs the concealed guns Web site http://www.LearnToCarry.com, said he had personally guaranteed the Bull's Eye attorneys would be paid and had recently received a bill saying he still owed about $54,000.

"I was on the hook for the legal bills in total," Oliver said. But "they are all paid due to the resolution."

Oliver declined to say how much was paid, by whom or why he couldn't say more. But he said the amount of money received was more than enough to cover the outstanding bills, and anything extra would be divided among guns rights groups who had contributed to a legal fund.

St. Louis attorney Burton Newman, who represented the 10 plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was one of three people who personally posted the injunction bond. He also declined to discuss its resolution.

Newman said he and Kansas City attorney Richard Miller were still calculating their own fees and expenses as part of their separate request to be reimbursed by the state.

The state constitution says taxpayers who successfully challenge laws based on violations of the so-called Hancock amendment, including the unfunded mandate section, shall have their costs and attorneys fees paid by the government.

Newman said his fees and expenses qualify for reimbursement because the Supreme Court upheld injunctions against enforcing the law in four counties where the costs of implementing the law had been shown to be more than the sheriffs were allowed to recover from concealed gun permit fees. Those counties ultimately decided to issue permits.

Attorney General Jay Nixon plans to oppose the attorneys' fee request.

"We don't believe they can legitimately claim they won," said Nixon spokesman Scott Holste.