New gun law faces lengthy judicial review

Nothing has come easy with Missouri's new concealed-weapons law. In 1999, voters narrowly defeated Proposition B, which would have allowed residents to carry a concealed weapon. In this year's session, the Missouri Legislature passed a conceal-carry law after vigorous debate only to have it vetoed by Gov. Bob Holden. Following still more vigorous debate, the legislature overrode the governor's veto with significant support from both sides of the political aisle.

Given the continued opposition to the concept of concealed weapons, it should have surprised no one that, despite the hard-fought campaign, the law did not go into effect last Saturday when it was supposed to. Instead, opponents filed a last-minute lawsuit in St. Louis, where a circuit judge issued a preliminary restraining order, saying the new law was unconstitutional.

Before we even get into the merits of that claim, we should first address the methods the opponents have used to put this new law on hold. Normally, the state is sued in Cole County where the legislature is based in Jefferson City. But this group of 10 plaintiffs -- which includes a St. Louis alderman, a Jefferson County lawyer, and not-for-profit group called the Institute for Peace and Justice -- sidestepped that process by naming St. Louis City Sheriff Jim Murphy as a defendant. That provided an exception to the venue rule and allowed them to file in a venue that is home to one of the defendants.

That move was purely political. Liberal St. Louis was chosen so the opponents could get a more sympathetic judge who couldn't wait to do whatever possible to keep the law off the books.

Which brings us to the merits of the claim that the new law is unconstitutional. St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer temporarily blocked the concealed weapons law in a ruling Friday, saying -- in a slap at legislators -- that the meaning of the Missouri Constitution in this instance could be understood by a 10-year-old.

We agree. So why couldn't the judge figure it out?

The lawsuit claims a provision of the Missouri Constitution dating to 1875 prohibits the wearing of concealed firearms. That law guarantees the right to bear arms and adds, "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

If 19th century drafters of our state's constitution wanted to make carrying a concealed weapon unconstitutional, they could have a put a clear prohibition. But they didn't. All the language does is state that carrying a concealed weapon is not a constitutional right. But neither is driving a car. There is nothing in the constitution that precludes the legislature from making it a legal right.

One other point. Carrying concealed weapons has been debated a long time. The constitutionality of the law has been mentioned during that debate, but it has never been brought up as a serious issue. It's a last-ditch effort now. The opposition is grasping at straws.

The St. Louis judge is expected to make his temporary ruling permanent in a few days. Then the issue will go before the state's highest court. Judicial review is fine. But we're confident that if the Missouri Supreme Court justices look at the Constitution, they will conclude what most of us already know: This law is constitutionally sound.

Most 10-year-olds would agree with that.