Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/9/2003 6:34:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 9:21:04 AM EST by Miranthis]
In case you have been living in a hole in the ground for the last few days Alvin Brooks of the Ad Hoc Group Against Crime in KC filed a suit to stop implementation of the CCW law. He has several arguments that I don't think will fly but one does worry me. He argues that the following provision of the Missouri Constitution forbids CCW.

" Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Frankly, this has me a bit worried. I can construct an argument against it, but have a sinking feeling that the STL Judge that has the case is going to stay the law. If he does then a constitutional amendment would be necessary. I frankly don't see that happening as it would require a vote of the people and we know how that worked last time.

Nothing we can do but talk about it until 2 PM Friday when the judge is set to rule.


Jeff D.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 8:21:00 PM EST
I'm not real worried. But then again, you never know...
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 10:08:27 AM EST
WELL 30 MINS UNTIL WE SEE IF THE IDIOTS CAN PULL THIS OFF AND BLOCK THE LAW. what do you guys think? will it happen? i hope not but my gut tells me somehow they will fig out a way to do it. Ronald
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 11:30:41 AM EST
I have a feeling this is going all the way to the SCOTUS. Whoever wins this round will appeal to the Mo. supremes and the loser of that round will appeal to the federal district court of appeals and thence to SCOTUS.
I think the opponents of CCW here do not want by any means this case to go before SCOTUS, this would be the dream lawsuit for the gunrights crowd. Who knows, maybe the Mo. constitution will be declared in violation of the US constitution????
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 11:55:44 AM EST
anyone get any news on the ruling? I have not heard word one.

Jeff D.
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 12:16:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2003 8:29:30 PM EST by RiffRandall]
No suprise here, in fact I called it right after the ccw bill passed. The statist ratfucks always run to the courts to try & get their way.
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 12:21:58 PM EST
Nothing yet, anyone know when the state courthouse closes?
Anyway for late breaking info go to news.yahoo.com and search under "news stories" for "missouri" this will give you the late breaking UPI and Reuters stuff. Also try www.stltoday.com/ and look for the latest news on the front page.
It really bothers me that some poliitical appointee can legislate against the will of the people, the legislative and executive branches of the .gov, is the judiciary the emperors of modern America?
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 1:26:21 PM EST
Just watched the news and saw a statement that the law's been blocked... crappy news channel didn't say much more than that and then ran a retarded story about a teeny little caman that was found on the side of the road...

Now there's news you can use...

Can't seem to find any more info on this right now.

Link Posted: 10/10/2003 1:41:08 PM EST
News from the front lines:

St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer today issued a preliminary injunction that delays the enforcement of Missouri's concealed-weapon law.

The law had been scheduled to take effect tomorrow.

But Ohmer delayed enforcement of his order until plaintiffs in the lawsuit that challenged the law post a $250,000 bond. They were attempting to raise the money this afternoon. The bond was requested by the state of Missouri.

Not waiting for them to post bond, Attorney General Jay Nixon immediately asked the state's Eastern District Court of Appeals to set aside the judge's order. A spokesman for Nixon said he expected that court in St. Louis to hear augments on the appeal later Friday night, and vowed Nixon would appeal Ohmer's order to the state Supreme Court if necessary.

Ohmer based his injunction on constitutional grounds raised by the plaintiffs. He ruled the law warranted further review by the Missouri Supreme Court and would have caused irreparable harm had it taken effect Saturday.

The judge cited comments from debate at Missouri's constitutional convention of 1875 that carrying concealed weapons is "a practice which cannot be too severely condemned" and is connected to "incalculable evil."

Burton Newman and Richard Miller, attorneys for plaintiffs seeking to stop the concealed weapons law, had argued the law is unconstitutional because it violates clauses dating back to the 1875 Missouri Constitution.

They cited a section of the Bill of Rights from the 1945 Missouri Constitution declaring the right to bear arms "shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" and a similar clause in the 1875 version stating "nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons."

Newman and Miller represented a group of public officials, members of the St. Louis Clergy Coalition and the nonprofit Institute for Peace and Justice.

Democratic Gov. Bob Holden praised the court decision. The Legislature voted on Sept. 11 to override Holden's veto of the bill, meaning it was to have taken effect automatically 30 days later.

"The conceal and carry law ... was obviously flawed in many respects," Holden said in a statement. "I believe the court took appropriation action today by preventing this ill-conceived law from taking effect."

Supporters of the law predicted they would eventually be victorious.

The judge's ruling "will be overturned, there's no question about that," said Kevin Jamison, a Kansas City attorney who is president of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance and author of a book on the history of concealed guns legislation. "The plaintiffs went judge shopping and they found what they wanted. Their petition is unbelievably frivolous. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the law."

Jamison and other legal analysts contend the constitution's language means only that there is no guaranteed right to concealed guns, implying the Legislature can either allow or disallow them. If the constitution actually banned concealed guns, then Missouri's laws allowing police to carry concealed guns also would be invalid, he said.[/quote}
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 1:44:14 PM EST
check this thread for more info.
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 6:21:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2003 6:22:19 PM EST by Cutter75]
" Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

The anti-gun crowd blew it...
If they want to use the Missouri Constitution to kill CCW, then their argument highlights the FACT that we can by constitutional law OPEN CARRY...

I don't know, but that's they way it reads to me...
Conceal Carry is specifically prohibited, but open carry is not, and the right to bear arms "openly" shall not be questioned...

Link Posted: 10/10/2003 8:32:22 PM EST
Cool, they quoted Kevin Jamison, he's the guy I told you guys I had lunch with a couple of weeks ago.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 2:08:55 AM EST
Latest news as of this AM,
Mo. supremes will not act until ohmer rules.
Appeals court said the same.
ohmer has set a hearing for thursday.
the 250,000 bond is case there are lawsuits stemming from the injunction, for when the plaintiffs get sued.

Hey Duke, what can we sue them for once we win? This is the only class action lawsuit I want to be in.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 2:37:15 AM EST
Interesting new twist here,
I just saw this on www.packing.org



Is this true? Is judge dumbfu**'* ruling only valid in St. L? This puts a whole new face on last nights events.

Link Posted: 10/11/2003 6:16:39 AM EST
Soon this ruling will not be valid anywhere, but we will have to be patient and let things settle down a bit.

I'm not sure what we could sue them over unless somebody who had passed the class and was ready to get a permit got injured or killed in a situation where CCW could have saved their life. In other words, we'd need some damages in order to have a claim upon which relief could be granted, and I certainly hope that doesn't happen.

We could normally, of course, file for a Declaratory Judgment, which is where the court basically pretends that someone got hurt and makes a declaration about what the law would say in a certain hypothetical case. There are two problems with this:

1. the DJ is not really used for political questions, its usually used for tax law, like "what would happen if I claimed this as a withholding on my state income tax?" and if we used a DJ here the potential for the other side to abuse the same process is obvious.

2. you file for a DJ with the state Attorney General's office. However, since the injunction is being issued against a state law, the AG is already automatically put on our side and must give full weight to the statute as written in his defense. This is required whether he likes the particular statute or not. So the AG is already on our side in this as much as he and his office can be, so filing for a DJ with his office would be a pretty useless gesture I think.

There aren't really any obvious other solutions that I can think of, off the top of my head. But remember I flunked the bar exam and sometimes I wear a ski mask when I'm with my friends, so take my legal advice with a grain of salt.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 7:53:17 AM EST
But remember I flunked the bar exam and sometimes I wear a ski mask when I'm with my friends, so take my legal advice with a grain of salt.

Link Posted: 10/11/2003 9:03:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2003 9:04:42 AM EST by Miranthis]

Originally Posted By Cutter75:
" Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Conceal Carry is specifically prohibited
, but open carry is not, and the right to bear arms "openly" shall not be questioned...

I don't agree with that reading. The "but this..." phrase modifies the first clause and says that the right to keep and bear arms will not, in-and-of-itself, justify the wearing of concealed weapons. The Missouri legislature has a long standing history of allowing CCW as that is specifically authorized by statue for LEOs and some others. If the Alvin Brooks lawsuit is founded on good law then the statute that allows LEO concealed carry is just as unconstitutional as the civilian CCW law is alleged to be.

The plaintiff's painted themselves into a corner. That is not to say that our Supreme Court (not SCOTUS) cannot find a way out that invalidates our law and still lets LEO's carry. They may very well do that as they are a pit of political patronage.

I like to think that this is a last death struggle on this issue. But, I still have the memory of old Alvin Brooks on KC tv concerning his lawsuit - he said in effect that he did not think anyone at all but the police ought to have guns and he was redoubling his efforts to fight this. Pretty interesting for a former police ofc., city council member don't you think.

Sit back and enjoy the ride my friends as this thing is gonna grind on now.

Jeff D.
Yet another God d*mn lawyer
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 9:02:39 AM EST
What's the latest on this? Anyone hearing anything?

Link Posted: 10/14/2003 9:20:42 AM EST
Most Constitutional scholars agree that the Art. I, Sec. 23 attack will fail in the end. This is a decision for the Mo. Sup. Ct. to pass final judgment on as SCOTUS rarely if ever passes judgment on a state's constitution.

So, At worst we have to wait for the STL Judge to issue his final Injunction. Then an appeal to the Eastern District of the Appeals Court that will take time for oral argument, briefs, etc. Then a possible rehearing by the full ED Appeals Court with argument and possibly additional briefs etc.. Finally we get to the Supreme Court level. Briefs and oral argument at that level and we start the waiting for a decision.

The best case would be for the STL guy to have a change of heart (not likely). We can then hope that the Sup. CT picks up the appeal immediately and rules quickly. We have a political court so I'm not thinking this is a lock at all.

Sit back and watch those big ole' wheels of justice turn and turn.

Jeff D.
Yet another God D*mn Lawyer
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 7:28:33 PM EST
FYI(couldn't find another thread to post it on)
Blue Cross and Blue Shield in KCMO the office at 2300 Main, has sign posted that says.
Weapons concealed or otherwise are prohibited on BCBSKC property(wording maybe off but that is the effect)
I imagine all BlueCrossBlueShield offices have similar signs up by now, or will soon.

Anyone seen any others going up lately?
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 7:41:28 PM EST
Yes. The KCStar bldg at 1805 Grand. That was a given, though.

Jeff Deane
Yet another God D*mn Lawyer
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 1:04:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Miranthis:
Yes. The KCStar bldg at 1805 Grand. That was a given, though.

Jeff Deane
Yet another God D*mn Lawyer

the star liberal?? NOWAY j/k
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 3:26:35 PM EST
Clocktower plazza At 270 and W. Florissant.
Damn near every building has A no CCW sign in the window that look like they were HANDED OUT BY THE COUNTY COPS!!!
About the only building there that I can recall that don't have one is the Dierburgs...But they are suffering from more 'pressnig' matters.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 7:47:42 PM EST
What do you mean, Hellion? That's certainly an interestnig thnig for you to post.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 9:37:04 AM EST
What do you mean "what do you mean"?
Go up there man youll see whay I'm talking about.
It looks like the County Police just went up there and started passing out "Criminal Empowerment Zone" signs every whare.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 3:19:10 PM EST
Heh, maybe we should make some "totally defenseless: please don't hurt me" signs and pass them out.
Link Posted: 10/18/2003 6:41:04 AM EST
Someone posted a thread about a sign that says "No Guns allowed - criminals, the people in this building are unarmed, so you don't have to worry"...

It's the appropriate size - print them up and stick them up...

See if that doesn't change some minds...

Link Posted: 10/18/2003 8:44:56 AM EST
just what I was thinking, Cutter! Print up a buttload and stick them up right under the no CCW signs.

Link Posted: 10/18/2003 9:15:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/18/2003 9:33:50 AM EST by Cutter75]
GaryM posted this link

in this link was a link to a John Ross article - interesting read...

in the same post with the Ross link was this link to the sign -

Sign reads -
No Weapons Allowed

This is a Defense Free Crime Zone

All Law Abiding Patrons Of This Establishment
Have Been Diarmed For Your Convenience

The Management

Happy Printing...

Top Top