Jeffro Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Well my friends, it is a political smokescreen and the bottom line will be no EFFECTOVE CCW for myself and many Missourians, as the Missouri Supreme Court ruled today. The courts screwed us royally. Rather complex, but I will try to simplify. In Missouri, several years ago they passed the "Hancock Ammendment". This basically states that no UNFUNDED mandates can be passed by the legislature. This means that any laws passed that require any "manpower" or expenditures by any government or government agency must also "find or create" the funds to finance it. The $100 one must pay for the CCW to the local sheriff (as mandated by the new CCW law) is cited in the law as going towards law enforcement training and equipment............. NOT as a payment for the time needed to process the applications for the CCWs. Four Missouri county sheriffs testified that this would place a strain on their budgets because of the manpower required to process the paperwork. Well, the state supreme court ruled today that the CCW law SHOULD STAND, HOWEVER, the four counties whose sheriffs testified that the work would overload them with expenses are EXEMPT from the new law, and do not have to issue permits. WORSE YET, the court said that any counties in Missouri that want to file their objections to processing the CCWs will also be exempt from having to comply. I live in St. Louis County, and they ALREADY issued a statement that anyone caught carrying EVEN IF THEY HAVE A PERMIT FROM ANOTHER COUNTY will be jailed and prosecuited. The larger counties that have metropolitan areas are already lining up to be exempted. It is a political smokescreen and will effectively shut down the majority of CCW applications. A few rural counties will allow them, but not the counties with metropolitan areas. The lawyer that pushed this whole challenge to the Missouri CCW has offered to represent ANYONE who wants to challenge their county allowing CCWs, as it is against the Hancock Ammendment and therefore illegal for them to process them. The court ruling does leave the door open for new legislation, as it did say that the Missouri constitution does NOT FORBID the legislature from allowing CCW............... but that will be at least a few years off again. SOOOOOOOOOO F%$KED AGAIN. Jeffro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerT Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 That BLOWS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Beginning to look like you need to come to beautiful TEXAS, where Mr. Sunshine could and would gladly instruct you for your CHL for FREE. Sorry they rained on your parade again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted February 27, 2004 Author Share Posted February 27, 2004 Yep.......... they are forcing me to just go to Arizona and get my license there. Arizona does have a CCW law............. don't they?? Brian should know the answer to this question!!!!!!!!!!!! I do appreciate the offer, Tightloop, but live in Missouri and have a condo in Arizona, so they would be logical. What say ye, Brian?????? Jeffro (Jeff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dunn Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Arizona does have concealed carry, they will even issue them to out of staters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Arizona does have concealed carry, they will even issue them to out of staters. Better than that - the will even accept many out of state permits. AZ is still much more restrictive on carry for licensees than Massachusetts which seems a bit odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 in AZ you don't have to have a license to carry, as long as it's not concealed! so i've been told. lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted February 27, 2004 Author Share Posted February 27, 2004 John, Rob, and Lynn, Thanks for the feedback. I will have to check that out. Might just get me covered in Missouri under their reciprocity clause............ assuming they don't throw out the entire law............. Even if it doesn't get me covered in Missouri, I will go for the CCW in Arizona, since I have a condo there and will be spending some time there. Thanks again, Jeffro (Jeff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhgtyre Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 If you want more info on CCW in AZ, or any state, check out Packing.org. They have a good site with lots of info. -ld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Apparenty there are a lot of very rich and influential people in Missouri who don't want to allow the average citizen the ability to legally exercise their inherent human right to self-defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 "Apparenty there are a lot of very rich and influential people in Missouri who don't want to allow the average citizen the ability to legally exercise their inherent human right to self-defense." ...And isn't that just usually the case, though....?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvc40jim Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Its not a bad thing in Missouri. The ruling was that CCW is not Un-Constitutional and all but the 4 effected counties can go forward with issuing permits as the appropriate paperwork arrives. In television interviews the Sheriff's of the 2 of the 4 counties are all for CCW and don't see much of a delay in issuance. Its been a long time coming in Missouri, and an all but unprecidented override of the Governors earlier veto, but our day has finally come. We have been told that we can likely expect another injunction, however the stage is finally set and law enforcement as a rule is behind it almost 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 Its not a bad thing in Missouri. The ruling was that CCW is not Un-Constitutional and all but the 4 effected counties can go forward with issuing permits as the appropriate paperwork arrives.In television interviews the Sheriff's of the 2 of the 4 counties are all for CCW and don't see much of a delay in issuance. Its been a long time coming in Missouri, and an all but unprecidented override of the Governors earlier veto, but our day has finally come. We have been told that we can likely expect another injunction, however the stage is finally set and law enforcement as a rule is behind it almost 100%. I wish it was quite as simple and "clear cut" as you express it. Unfortunately, it is not. There will be lots of legal manuvering, and it will not be quick or smooth. The simplist solution is for the legislature to ammend the bill, but that will require the governor's signature, and he has (of course) vowed to veto again. Back to the legislature. The override vote was VERY close, depended on one swing vote. That was not in an election year............. this is. Also I know the attorney who handled the case for the anti-gunners, Burt Neuman, and he is a tenacious, pompous, ass. He is nowhere close to through, and he will fight it all the way. Lastly, I respectfully disagree that law enforcement is "as a rule for it almost 100%" There have been a lot of LEOs fighting it......... most of them police CHIEFS. Sheriff Murphy in City of St. Louis is dead against it, as is Ron Batelli who is chief of St. Louis County Police. Batelli has stated that he has ordered his officers to arrest anyone carrying, even if they have a Missouri Carry License!!!! He said the charges probably won't stick, but they will have to be arrested and fight it out in court and that will cost the defendant time and money!!!!!! I think castration would be in order for him!!!!!! Yes, the fact that the courts ruled it in compliance with the Missouri Constitution is a very positive step, but there are many large hurdles yet to go. Jeffro (Jeff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Batelli has stated that he has ordered his officers to arrest anyone carrying, even if they have a Missouri Carry License!!!! He said the charges probably won't stick, but they will have to be arrested and fight it out in court and that will cost the defendant time and money!!!!!! That's a pretty stupid thing for him to say. If they really do it, he's going to get sued and there will be significant personal liability on his part. I doubt if he has much experience where his job and title don't complete insulate him from any sort of liability (or responsibility for that matter). Hopefully the idiot will rue the day he chose to abuse his authority that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 John Ross (author of Unintended Consequences) has some commentary on the CCW decision Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffro Posted February 28, 2004 Author Share Posted February 28, 2004 SJ, That link sounds more promising than not. I sure hope he is correct. It gives me hope, as John Ross is usually pretty analytical and realistic............ SURE hope he is right!!! Thanks all for the feedback............. I DO appreciate all of it. Needless to say, this issue is near and dear to me! Best as always, Jeffro (Jeff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now