Missouri's Supreme Court hears concealed guns arguments

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The intense battle over whether Missourians should have the right to carry concealed weapons reached a pinnacle Thursday, as state Supreme Court judges questioned whether a new law allowing hidden guns violates an old constitutional provision.

The assumption heading into the hearing -- as determined by a St. Louis circuit judge's ruling -- was that concealed guns are prohibited under a state constitutional section dating to 1875.

Supreme Court judges peppered an attorney representing concealed gun opponents to explain how that interpretation can hold true. They also focused intently on another claim of the plaintiff gun opponents -- that the new law violates a constitutional ban on unfunded mandates to local governments by imposing new duties without providing enough funding.

Enacted when legislators overrode Democratic Gov. Bob Holden's veto Sept. 11, the law allows Missourians age 23 and older to receive concealed gun permits from their local sheriffs after passing criminal background checks, firearms training courses and paying a fee of up to $100. The law also entitles Missourians age 21 and older to conceal guns in their vehicles without need of a permit.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer blocked the law on Oct. 10 -- one day before its effective date -- on grounds it violated a constitutional section stating: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

The judge, siding with concealed gun opponents, interpreted the provision as an outright prohibition on concealed guns. Gun rights groups and the attorney general's office, which is defending the law, contend the language means only there is no inherent right to concealed guns, implying the Legislature can either allow or prohibit them.

During arguments Thursday, Supreme Court judges pressed plaintiff's attorney Burton Newman, of St. Louis, for his definition of "justify." Newman said it means "allow" -- or in this case, not allow. He cited transcripts from the 1875 constitutional convention in which delegate Thomas Gantt voices staunch opposition to concealed guns.

But Assistant Attorney General Paul Wilson countered that "no state in the country has bought the argument they're bringing to you today," He said Missouri legislators, governors and judges all have assumed for more than a century that the constitution allowed the Legislature to grant some people the power to carry concealed guns.

The New Mexico Supreme Court, considering a similar constitutional challenge to a similar concealed guns law, ruled just two weeks ago that its law was valid.

Although touching on that central constitutional issue, Missouri Supreme Court judges directed most of their questions to the legality of the law's funding mechanism, a claim which Ohmer rejected.

Attorney Richard Miller, of Kansas City, who represents the plaintiff's group of citizens and elected officials, seized on a section of the concealed guns law directing applications fees to a sheriff's fund that "shall only be used by law enforcement agencies for the purchase of equipment and to provide training."

If the money must go toward equipment and training, then it is not covering the additional staffing and processing expenses of handling concealed gun permits, Miller said. Thus the law imposes an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate, he argued.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California, who watched the arguments, said afterward that Miller was twisting his intent -- with a potentially dire effect upon the state's budget.

Crawford said the fee is meant to first cover the sheriff's expenses of administering the law, and only any extra money is intended to go toward law enforcement training and equipment. But if Supreme Court judges follow the plaintiff's logic, Crawford said, the state could be forced to pay for numerous new criminal laws, including requirements to maintain sex offender registries and compile racial statistics on traffic stops.

Newman said he was encouraged by the court's dual focus on the funding issue and the prohibitive language argument.

"We are interested in winning this case on any constitutional ground," Newman said. "We want to stop the enactment of the concealed-and-carry law from ever going into effect."

Former Rep. Harold Volkmer, D-Mo., who watched the arguments as chairman of the National Rifle Association's Civil Rights Defense Fund, said his impression from the questioning was that the plaintiffs had "fallen flat" on the funding arguments and "all but given up" on the claim of a constitutional prohibition against concealed guns.

The NRA, although not a party to the lawsuit, filed briefs in support of the Missouri law.

In the nation's first vote on the topic, Missouri voters narrowly rejected a concealed guns law in April 1999. But lawmakers passed a similar version of the law last year when Republicans paid to fly a senator home from an Army National Guard assignment in Cuba to cast the deciding vote on overriding Holden's veto.

------

On the Net:

Missouri Judiciary: http://www.osca.state.mo.us