Haven't heard anything in a while....

Shawn

I thought there was to be decision by Nov. 1 but haven't heard anything. I have no idea what is going on but the way I am thinking is that this is good news.
This is just my opinion but I believe Ohmer, a leftist anti-gun type, is putting off his decision because he knows he and the other antis can not win. To them there will be no victory but they can at least delay the law as long as possible. If he could overturn the new law he would have done so at once so as to enjoy a big victory celebration.
Just my opinion and I have been known to be wrong so take it for what it is worth.

Editted to add;
According to www.wmsa.net/ Ohmer has still not said anything.

Does anybody know how long a temporary injunction can last? Maybe it is an option for Ohmer to just let the injunction run out without making a judgement. If so, does the law resume?

The effective time of the temp injunction will be listed on the injunction itself, if anyone has a copy of the actual injunction you can read it off.  Usually they last a matter of days or weeks, not months, but there is little chance of the law taking effect because of a lapse of time in the injuction-- the only use for a temp injunction is to buy time to prepare for a "real" series of hearings.  

Perhaps a certain judge is stalling in order to let a certain group of people have more time to prepare, because they have to defend some rather hastily-written arguments.  Draw your own conclusions.

I thought we were supposed to hear something this week....

Haven't heard or read anything new in a while now...

Shawn

11/06/03

[Crickets chirping...]

Just caught a news flash, indicating more problems for Mo. ccw law!  Sorry, story at 5???

Judge continues order against concealed guns
By Tim Bryant
Post-Dispatch
11/07/2003


A St. Louis judge ruled today that Missouri's concealed gun law violates the state constitution and ordered that that new statute remain unimplemented.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer clears the way for the Missouri Supreme Court to consider the matter.

Ohmer issued a permanent injunction against the law's enforcement.

The law had been scheduled to go into effect Oct. 11. The day before, Ohmer granted a preliminary order to make the law ineffective.

Ohmer heard testimony during two hearings last month in a case filed by 10 plaintiffs--including several St. Louis-area officeholders--to stop the law from taking effect.

"Today's ruling will help protect the people of this state who voted against conceal and carry in 1999," said Gov. Bob Holden, noting the law would have allowed concealed guns in places such as schools, hospitals and day care centers.

"I think he made the right decision. That's the reason I vetoed it. I didn't think it was constitutional."


A spokesman for Attorney General Jay Nixon, whose office argued in favor of the law, did not immediately know if an appeal was planned. Nixon was expected to issue a statement later Friday. He has said in the past that whichever side lost would almost certainly appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.

An attorney for the National Rifle Association, which intervened in the case, said the constitutional provision is not meant as a prohibition against concealed guns. Attorney Stephen Halbrook noted there are already exemptions -- police can carry concealed guns, residents can conceal them in their homes.

"Ever since Missouri has been a state, the Legislature has decided when and where to either allow or prohibit concealed weapons," Halbrook said. "We will vigorously pursue this on appeal. You haven't seen the last of us."

Burton Newman, a lawyer for opponents of the concealed weapons measure, expected the ruling to go to the state Supreme Court.

"Our ultimate goal has always been a determination with the Missouri Supreme Court that conceal and carry is unconstitutional," Newman said.

Rep. Larry Crawford, R-Centerton, the House sponsor of the concealed weapons bill, said the ruling was no surprise.

"This is what I expected and what we supporters of this bill expected," Crawford said. "We knew that it was going to the Supreme Court either way. Now I'm confident it will be appealed by the attorney general and the other attorneys involved to the Supreme Court, where we intend to prevail."

The Legislature passed the law on Sept. 11 by overriding Holden's veto. The law allows Missourians age 23 and older who pay $100 and pass a criminal background check and a training course to get permits from their county sheriffs to carry concealed guns. It also allows anyone 21 or older to conceal a legally owned gun in a vehicle without a permit.

Opponents sued on claims the law violates a state constitution provision dating to 1875 that guarantees the right to bear arms and adds "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

The Associated Press contributed information for this story.

For more on this story, check back with STLtoday.com or read Saturday's Post-Dispatch.

www.john-ross.net/missouri_ccw.htm

"11/7 UPDATE: Judge Ohmer made his temporary injunction permanent today, as we expected him to.  The good news is he dismissed all plaintiffs' claims except the claim that any carry law passed by the legislature violates Article 1, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution.  The GREAT news is that he let the entire $250,000 bond stand, and did not return ANY of the money to the plaintiffs!  We have moved for the bond to be increased to $1 million and Judge Ohmer has not denied the motion yet!  Damages are piling up against all the plaintiffs by the day.  This is going to the Supreme Court, and my read is it will be sooner rather than later.  

   I have read Ohmer's reasoning behind his ruling.  It is 23 pages long.  Up until the very last it looks like he is going to rule for us.  He even quotes language identical to Missouri's from North Carolina's Constitution.  North Carolina is a shall-issue carry state.  Then he basically says "Based on one sentence uttered by one delegate to Missouri's Constitutional Convention, and ignoring an opposite statement made by the same person, and also ignoring a century of case law and legal rulings in this and every other state, I don't think in 1875 they wanted the legislature to allow anyone in Missouri to carry concealed weapons, ever, under any circumstances." Go here to download a PDF file of his ruling (long download).  

   One interpretation of all these facts is that after painting himself into a corner with his 'even a ten-year-old' statement, Ohmer is intentionally kicking this hot potato up to the Supreme Court.  He let the injunction stand because to dismiss it could create chaos when sheriffs started issuing endorsements before the Supreme Court made its ruling.  He knows that the only fair thing to do is to acknowledge that since his reasoning may be wrong and a century of law and legal decisions in Missouri's (and all other states') courts may be right, the plaintiffs' bond must stand, and they must continue to be at risk for all the financial damage they may have caused.  For acknowledging this, Judge Ohmer must be genuinely commended.

   Realize that the entire country's eyes are watching this one.  If the MO Supreme Court upholds Ohmer's reasoning, EVERY law passed by our legislature since day one in any area that our Constitution does not specifically give the legislature the authority to regulate may be challenged on Constitutional grounds.  That's almost everything.  Guns are just the tip of the iceberg on this one.  If you're involved in this civil rights battle, it will be a story to tell your grandkids.

SEND MONEY to our legal defense fund!  Supreme Court fights aren't cheap!

By mail, LTC Legal Defense Fund
      2000 E. Broadway, STE 307
      Columbia, MO 65201"