|
Raytown Tribune, November 19, 2003
More questions than answers about concealed weapons
The Republican leadership in the Missouri Legislature was gloating when it overrode the governor's veto of the conceal and carry law it passed in May.
The law allows Missourians 23 and older who pass a background test and undergo training to carry a concealed weapon.
But all the leadership now needs to do is look around and see what a mess it has stirred up.
Lawmakers got their way. But did they? They suffer from short memories. They forgot that less than two years ago voters said they did not want a law that allows the carrying of concealed weapons.
A small group of citizens took the matter to court in St. Louis. That court declared the law unconstitutional, agreeing with arguments by opponents of conceal and carry that while the constitution provides for the right to bear arms, it does not justify the carrying of concealed weapons.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has appealed that
decision to the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing that the constitution leaves the state to regulate concealed weapons.
He has asked for an expedited hearing. But don't hold your breath. The high court rarely grants requests for expedited hear-ings, except in the case of an emergency, such as a deadlocked election. The issue of concealed weapons is not an emergency.
But it is outside the Supreme Court that the issue gets murky. The backlash has begun. Cities and counties throughout the state moved quickly to pass ordinances banning concealed weapons on their turf before the law took effect.
Clay County passed an ordinance banning concealed weapons in all county buildings and in county-owned or -leased vehicles. Jackson and Platte counties took similar action.
The Kansas City Council passed an ordinance banning weapons in city buildings and is considering a resolution encouraging businesses to ban concealed weapons on their premises.
The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority held a special conference call meeting to ban concealed weapons on its buses and in its buildings.
Gov. Bob Holden issued an executive order banning concealed weapons in all state buildings. He did it, he said, to ensure the safety of all state employees.
With local and state governments taking action to keep weapons out of public places, at least some of the teeth have been taken out of the law.
The Supreme Court, in addition to determining whether the law is constitutional, will hear arguments that lawmakers
thwarted the will of the people, who rejected the law at the polls in the first place. Opponents to conceal and carry also will argue that the law provides no funding for administrative costs and enforcement. That's called an unfunded mandate, a sin
committed by Congress on a regular basis.
Then there is the enforcement of the law itself. County officials readily admit that, except for the environs of the courts and adjacent facilities, they have little, or no statutory authority to ban concealed weapons from public buildings.
As Clay County Sheriff Paul Vescovo said, "We can ask them to leave, but beyond that, there is not much we can do on enforcement."
So the Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has opened a legal can of worms. And it will get more confusing if the law is declared constitutional.
Surely someone will test the ban on concealed weapons in public buildings. That likely will trigger a string of lawsuits.
And how many private businesses that ban concealed weapons will end up in court defending their decisions?
These issues will not be addressed this time because they are not part of the lawsuit to throw out the conceal and carry law. But inevitably, they will have to be addressed.
Thankfully, the high court will not have to address the question of whether conceal and carry laws raise or lower the crime rate. Its docket on this matter is likely to be full enough.
|
Christopher McCann
Raytown, Missouri 64138
xtofer1973@yahoo.com
November 24, 2003
The Raytown Tribune
10227 E. 61st St.
Raytown, MO 64133
Dear Editor,
Your November 19 editorial “More questions than answers about concealed weapons” contained more errors than truth about Missouri’s concealed weapons law. To say the “Republican leadership…was gloating when it overrode the governor’s veto” certainly mischaracterizes a vote supported by over two-thirds of all legislators - Democrats and Republicans. Raytown’s own Representative, Mike Sager, a Democrat, voted to override the veto.
The Referendum on concealed weapons (Proposition B) was not “less than two years ago” but over four years ago. Proponents for concealed weapons have been working hard since then, winning the hearts and minds of fellow Missourians and their representatives on this issue. It’s called representative democracy. Consequently, in the 2000 and 2002 elections, many anti-concealed carry legislators were not re-elected. Our new representatives passed the License to Carry law. Indeed the people have spoken.
The “current mess” was not created by the new law, but by its opponents who brought the current law suit. You failed to mention that Judge Ohmer ruled against four of their arguments: unfunded mandate, vagueness, violating the will of the people, and exceeding the police powers of the state. Contrary to your editorial, the Supreme Court will NOT be hearing any of these arguments, but only the one that Judge Ohmer accepted – that the new law violates article I, Section 23 of the state Constitution. Contrary to your prediction, an expedited hearing WAS granted because this is a critical issue. Arguments will be heard on January 22.
I will grant that there are many exceptions in the law which are being multiplied by local officials who want to ban law abiding citizens (who have passed a background check, been fingerprinted, paid $100-$200 for safety training, passed a shooting test, and paid $100 for their permit) from carrying in public buildings. Are permit holders criminals? No. Does anyone think for one second that a criminal will see a “concealed weapons prohibited” sign (be it posted on a church, day care center, business or city hall) and say to himself, “Gee, my illegally (criminals don’t get permits) concealed weapon isn’t permitted here. I better go kill people where concealed weapons are permitted.”? Of course not. Actually, the opposite will happen. Criminals will know exactly where it is safe for them to murder, rob, rape, kidnap and steal – in those places where honest citizens will not be armed – in the VICTIM ZONES created by the shortsighted politicians that you name. Those places banning concealed weapons will be the most dangerous and might as well add to their “concealed weapons prohibited” signs “criminals welcome, we’re defenseless.”
Missouri has become the 45th state to pass concealed carry legislation. In each case, the enemies of your inalienable right to self-defense have predicted chaos, bloodshed, vigilantism, legal battles, etc. In every case, they were wrong. Pennsylvanians alone hold over 600,000 concealed carry permits – over ten times the number expected in Missouri. They have learned a very simple lesson: guns in the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens save lives.
Thank You,
Christopher McCann
|
