Judge will file written decision on Missouri's new gun law

ST. LOUIS -- A St. Louis judge declined to rule on the future of Missouri's new concealed guns law until he could review arguments made for and against it in a hearing Thursday.

Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer said he would issue a written decision as soon as he could but did not set a specific timeline for the ruling.

"The constitution is written in simple language, but that doesn't mean the decision is simple," Ohmer said following a hearing that lasted 5 1/2 hours. "I have great respect and deference for the General Assembly, and any decisions about the constitution are of great importance.

"I wish I could make this decision tonight, but it is not possible."

Ohmer said a temporary injunction blocking the concealed-guns law would remain in place until he reached a decision. Ohmer issued the temporary order Oct. 10 -- a day before the law was to take effect.

Assistant attorney general Paul Wilson had asked Ohmer to rule Thursday night, but the judge said he wanted to give a thoughtful review to the arguments and legal briefs so he could render a fair decision.

"I believe it's fair and just that the court take time to make a rational and reasonable decision that can be supported by a written opinion, for the benefit of the Supreme Court," Ohmer said.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon and attorneys for the plaintiffs agreed that regardless of Ohmer's ruling, a direct appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court is likely.

An attorney for the National Rifle Association argued in a hearing Thursday that framers of Missouri's Constitution did not prohibit the legislature from granting the state's residents the right to carry concealed weapons.

NRA attorney Michael Minton acknowledged that the framers of the constitution withheld the right to carry concealed weapons, but said they didn't prohibit the legislature from granting the right later.

Richard Miller, an attorney for plaintiffs seeking to stop the law, had argued before Minton that nothing in the state's constitution can be construed as sanctioning concealed weapons.

Miller said other states uniformly deferred to the legislature, but framers of Missouri's 1875 and 1945 constitutions did not.

Minton said residents have many rights that are not in the constitution, but that are given by the legislature. If the plaintiffs are right, Minton said, then police officers would not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

"It's plain language and there's one interpretation only," Minton said.

Constitutional provision

Plaintiffs have cited a Missouri Constitution provision dating to 1875 that guarantees the right to bear arms and adds, "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Ohmer cited that clause in his initial ruling, saying it cast enough doubt on the law's constitutionality that it warranted review.

"The law is on our side," Miller said. "There is a constitutional ban on the carrying of concealed weapons."

Representatives of sheriffs departments in Jackson, Greene and Camden counties testified about the costs associated with administering the law, which calls on county sheriffs to approve or deny requests for permits.

Jackson County Capt. Phil Moran, who was called to testify by the plaintiffs, said his Kansas City area department will ask lawmakers for additional money -- about $150,000 -- to cover the expense. He said the department will need to hire four additional staff to handle concealed guns requests.

Those applying for concealed weapons pay a $100 fee -- $38 of which goes to the state for fingerprinting, and $62 to the county for processing. Moran said that isn't enough.

But officials with Greene and Camden counties -- called by supporters of the law -- told the judge the additional burden would create no financial hardship. Camden County Sheriff John Page said existing staff would work some overtime to handle the additional workload.

"I believe the fees will be more than sufficient to process the applications," Page said.

Miller argued the Hancock Amendment requires the Legislature to provide adequate funding to carry out additional duties, but the concealed-guns law did not provide enough additional money to cover expenses.

Wilson argued that plaintiffs would have to show "actual evidence of actual expense" to prove the law violated the Hancock Amendment. Wilson said plaintiffs had only provided "guesswork."

The law -- enacted when the state Legislature overrode Gov. Bob Holden's veto last month -- would allow Missourians at least age 23 who pay $100 and pass criminal background checks and training courses to get permits from their county sheriffs to carry concealed guns. It also would allow anyone 21 or older to conceal a gun in a vehicle without need of a permit.

Kansas City Mayor Pro Tem Alvin Brooks, one of 13 plaintiffs, said he was pleased Ohmer would not reach a quick decision.

"This is a real issue that faces the people of Missouri," Brooks said.