Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 11/11/2003 12:36:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 5:20:42 PM EDT by GaryM]
Notice the date in bold and the last sentence...

JEFFERSON CITY – Attorneys who successfully challenged Missouri's new concealed weapons law in St. Louis circuit court say they need more time to get ready for an appeal before the state Supreme Court.

Attorney General Jay Nixon wants the state high court to hear arguments on the case by Dec. 3. But lawyers for the challengers said today they can't be ready that soon.

"We need more time to prepare a proper and adequate representation of our clients," said Burton Newman, a lawyer based in Clayton. "We cannot meet the timetable that the attorney general and others have proposed because of the amount of resources they have."

Newman and Richard C. Miller, a lawyer from Kansas City, are not charging a fee for representing the 10 clients who challenged the concealed weapons law. St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer ruled last week that the law was unconstitutional on one of five points raised by the challengers.

Newman said that when the case is argued before the Supreme Court, the challengers will not only defend the point that Ohmer upheld, but also advocate in favor of the four other issues that Ohmer dismissed. Newman said time is needed to prepare arguments on all five of the issues.

One of those involves the state's "Hancock amendment," the constitutional lid on government spending. The amendment requires the Legislature to pass additional appropriations to finance new activities that are required of local governments. The Legislature did not pass an appropriation for county sheriffs to issue concealed weapons permits, but authorized sheriffs to collect a $100 fee that was supposed to cover the costs.

Nixon, whose office is responsible for defending the state statute, wants the Supreme Court to expedite arguments in the case. Nixon's office filed a proposed schedule that calls for parties to file written arguments and responses with the court through the rest of this month and for the case to be argued before the seven-member court Dec. 3.

"This plan puts the plaintiffs at great disadvantage," Newman said. "We will indicate this schedule is not practical for the court decide an issue of this significance."

Newman said Nixon has resources at his command that the challengers do not have. He said that in addition to the state attorney general's office, those defending the statute include two large St. Louis law firms: Sandberg, Phoenix and von Gontard, and Thompson Coburn. Those firms represent the Bulls Eye shooting range and the National Rifle Association.

"Two attorneys in private practice don't have those resources," Newman said. "You have here complicated constitutional issues before the state's highest court and the attorney general proposes they be resolved in three weeks."

It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide the schedule for hearing the case.
Link Posted: 11/11/2003 2:55:45 PM EDT
Thanks for the update Gary, I was wondering when the date would be set.

I wonder if the date the court sets to hear it will be any indicator as to how they will rule.
Link Posted: 11/12/2003 6:43:29 AM EDT
Dec. 3rd is too soon?

SOB's.... just trying to stall...

Shawn
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 5:23:35 PM EDT
Gawd how I hate ths state...
The "politically neutral" missouri supreme assholes.. oops court has set a hearing date. 22Jan03, read more about it here....
www.ksdk.com/news/news_article_lc.asp?storyid=50460
I can not wait to get out of this god forsaken hellhole.... Anyone want to go in with me to purchase a small carribean island where we can make up our own rules to suit ourselves??
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 7:34:18 PM EDT
they can delay the inevitable but I think we are inevitably going to win
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:48:51 PM EDT
I am inclined to believe that this law will be upheld by the Supreme Court... not because they want it to be upheld but because if they strike down the law as unconstitutional then who is to say what other Missouri state laws passed by the legislature that may contradict the ye olde tyme state constitution will be dragged before them based on the new precident they may set by striking it down? If you ask me Liberals and Republican matters aside, the overturning of this law from a legal standpoint on constitutional grounds will mark the beginning of a mountain of litigation from who knows how many sources looking to cash in on the new legal precidence that may be set. We could see strange things happen in the next few years...

And just to put some levity in this situation, here is a favorite quote of mine from the Simpsons:

Old Clerk: "That's correct! There has been a prohibition law on the books for the last 200 years... and it is also illegal to put squirrels down one's pants for the purpose of gambling and all ducks must wear long pants."

Mayor Quimby: "Let me see that... sure enough... long pants!"
Top Top