Concealed gun ruling brings joy -- and jitters

COLUMBIA, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court's decision clearing the way for carrying concealed guns brought joy and jitters on Thursday -- and a hodgepodge of reaction from sheriffs grappling to understand how the ruling affects them.

Joy in suburban St. Louis: John Thurik, an employee of a computer company, said he has undergone the required training and is ready to pay the $100 fee for a permit to pack a hidden pistol. For Thurik, the need is clear: "I want to protect my family against violent crime and I want to keep the criminal guessing."

Jitters in Columbia: Marcie Davenport, assistant manager of Old Chicago, said she's now talking with her bosses about whether to post a sign barring guns at the business, which promotes its pizzas, 110 varieties of beer and family atmosphere.

The law includes a ban on guns in bars, but Davenport wondered whether Old Chicago qualified since it sells a lot of food as well as alcohol. "I can't just look at a guest and say, 'Hey, he's safe,"' she said. "Now we have to consider whether we must post a no-guns sign."

Missouri's highest court issued a mixed decision -- generally upholding the Legislature's right to allow concealed guns, but also ruling the permits don't have to be issued in four counties where it was shown to impose an unconstitutional state spending requirement. Those four counties -- Jackson, Cape Girardeau, Camden and Greene -- had been cited as being impacted by an unfunded mandate from the state, even though the sheriffs are authorized to collect a $100 fee from each applicant.

'100 percent in favor'

In those counties, sheriffs said they would ask for authority from county officials to accept the fees, apply them toward equipment and training as the law requires, and use other department money to pay for the permitting process.

Cape Girardeau County Sheriff John Jordan said he is "100 percent in favor" of allowing concealed guns, and that his agency would still have a net gain of $62 after paying for the background checks.

Other sheriffs, however, said in interviews they are reluctant to start issuing permits without a further interpretation of the court's ruling.

In central Missouri's Audrain County, Sheriff Stuart Miller said he could begin handing out permits to about 75 applicants as soon as he got the go-ahead from the Missouri Sheriffs' Association, which has been helping its members navigate the ins and outs of the law.

But Jim Vermeersch, executive director of the sheriffs' association, said he was still having lawyers review the court ruling late Thursday and wouldn't have advice for his members until today.

"The sheriffs can do what they want to do," Vermeersch said. "What I have to do is try to figure out some kind of guidance to afford to them. And hopefully everybody will try to do the same thing, so that we have some consistency out there in Missouri as to how this thing is going to operate."

In the city of St. Louis, sheriff's administrative assistant Mike Guzy said the court dispute about state spending requirements only raised more questions about how to pay for the required background checks. "We're waiting for legal clarification," Guzy said.

Next door in St. Louis County, police chief Ron Battelle said "we're going to be maintaining a status quo position" -- meaning no permits -- "until our legal staff can do a thorough review of the opinion and it becomes final by the court."

Associated Press writer Robert Sandler contributed to this story from Jefferson City.