Trash dispute has connection to concealed weapons case

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Perhaps it's fitting: After years of political trash-talking about whether Missourians should be allowed to carry concealed guns, the final decision may indeed emanate from trash.

The members of the Missouri Supreme Court -- although using sanitized court lingo -- posed quite a few questions relating to trash while hearing arguments Thursday from attorneys in the concealed guns case.

The trash in question was collected about a decade ago by Jefferson City, which filed a constitutional challenge to a 1990 law requiring some cities to submit new, more detailed "solid waste management" plans to the state Department of Natural Resources.

The City of Jefferson, as it officially is called, claimed the new mandate violated the Missouri Constitution's so-called Hancock amendment by imposing a requirement on local governments without providing the money to pay for it.

The Supreme Court, which heard the case first in 1993 and again in 1996, ultimately ruled that Jefferson City did not have to comply with the new law -- unless the state gave it money.

The case of City of Jefferson v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources was referenced frequently as opponents of Missouri's concealed gun law contended it imposes an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer rejected the funding claim last fall but declared the concealed guns law unconstitutional for violating an alleged prohibition on concealed weapons within the state's Bill of Rights.

But in considering the appeal, the Supreme Court judges focused mainly on the funding issue -- an indication they are giving it serious consideration.

Missouri's concealed guns law -- still on hold -- allows adults age 23 and older to receive concealed gun permits from local sheriffs after passing background checks and firearms training courses and paying a fee of up to $100.

At face value, it might seem the state has provided a funding source for the mandate. But concealed gun opponents contend the $100 fee cannot be used for the sheriffs' new duties, and wouldn't cover their costs anyway.

But perhaps most relevant are the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in the Jefferson City trash case.

The court ruled that Jefferson City could pursue its case only when it demonstrated specific evidence of increased costs, not the mere presumption that costs would rise as a result of the state law. In that case, the evidence consisted of two engineering bids to develop the solid waste plan.

But the court also ruled that only Jefferson City was entitled to ignore the law, because no other cities had submitted any evidence of increased costs.

The lesson for the concealed guns case is twofold.

First, sheriffs must prove increased costs, a possibility that Supreme Court judges questioned, given that sheriffs have yet to begin administering the law.

Secondly, each county might have to prove its individual costs in order to be exempt from administering the law.