Veto threat undermines concealed weapons law fix

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- When Gov. Bob Holden unholstered a veto threat and aimed it at legislation intended to fix a constitutional flaw in Missouri's new concealed weapons law, he dissuaded lawmakers from giving the matter serious consideration this year, supporters of the bill say.

Because of the lack of action, the patchwork implementation of the law by county sheriffs, with some opting to process permit applications for concealed weapons and others not, will continue for at least another year. Residents of counties where the law isn't being implemented may not apply for a permit in a participating county.

State Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California, said enthusiasm for the clean-up bill quickly waned when Holden, a Democrat, told reporters in early April that he would spike the measure. The Republican-led Missouri Legislature last year overrode Holden's veto to enact the original conceal and carry bill.

"I was making progress with legislators and leadership in the House and Senate on the importance of getting this done until the governor's statement," Crawford said. "After that, it was 'We are not going to do it this year.'"

The support of rural Democrats was essential to last year's successful override. Crawford said some pro-gun Democrats were skittish about bucking a governor of their own party during an election year.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, also said Holden's position was a factor in the bill's lack of momentum.

"There sure didn't seem to me, when an issue is dumped on us late in the session, that we should be spending a lot of time on a bill that the governor was going to veto," Kinder said.

The effort got a late start, coming on the heels of a Feb. 26 Missouri Supreme Court decision that upheld the general constitutionality of the law but exposed a problem in how sheriffs would be compensated for handling permit applications. The ruling didn't directly prohibit sheriffs from issuing permits but left those who do so vulnerable to lawsuits.

No unfunded mandates

The Missouri Constitution bars the legislature from imposing unfunded mandates on local governments. Although the conceal and carry law authorizes sheriffs to charge up to $100 per application, it earmarks the proceeds for equipment and training costs.

Crawford's bill and a similar Senate measure would have clarified that the application fee could be used for any costs associated with processing applications and issuing permits.

The law allows residents age 23 and older who pass a criminal background check and complete a firearms training course to apply for a concealed weapons permit. The Department of Revenue will begin including concealed weapons endorsements on driver's licenses as of July 1.

According to learntocarry.com, a Web site that tracks issues related to the Missouri law, 83 of the state's 114 counties were accepting applications as of Tuesday.

In Southeast Missouri, only Mississippi County wasn't doing so. Sheriff Larry Turley had been waiting for guidance from the legislature but now plans to start accepting applications around June 1.

While counties that issue permits can face taxpayer lawsuits for implementing an unfunded mandate, those that don't can be sued under the conceal and carry law, which requires sheriffs to issue permits to qualified applicants.

The lack of clarifying action from the legislature leaves sheriffs in a bind, said Jim Vermeersch, director of the Missouri Sheriff's Association.

"It is convoluted," Vermeersch said. "It comes down to what county sheriffs elect to do given the litigation potential on each side."

The Supreme Court excused Cape Girardeau County and three others from enforcing the law. They were the only counties for which evidence of an unfunded mandate was introduced at trial.

The Cape Girardeau County Commission, however, gave Sheriff John Jordan its blessing to process permits anyway. The court specifically mentioned it was taking no position on whether counties could voluntarily accept an unfunded mandate under the constitution's Hancock amendment.

Jordan said he is comfortable with the county's position, even though the legislative fix didn't pass.

"If we are challenged by someone under the Hancock amendment, I think we've got a winnable case," Jordan said.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608