KELLEY McCALL/The Associated Press The battle over Missouri's concealed-weapons law shifted to the chambers of the Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday. Alvin Brooks (left), one of the plaintiffs challenging the law, talked with Missouri Assistant Attorney General Paul Wilson after the proceeding.

JEFFERSON CITY — Until Thursday, most of the legal arguments over Missouri's new concealed-weapons law had focused on whether a section of the state constitution bans concealed weapons.

But the focus of the debate may have shifted Thursday when the Missouri Supreme Court took up the matter in a courtroom crowded with reporters and supporters and opponents of the law.

The Hancock amendment, which limits state government spending and bars unfunded mandates, became a key topic as oral arguments were presented.

The court made no decision Thursday, and a ruling could take as long as 90 days.

The law would allow Missourians 23 and older to carry concealed weapons after a background check and training.

On Nov. 7, St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer issued an injunction against the law based on opponents' arguments that a section of the constitution prohibits concealed weapons.

The plaintiffs challenging the law, including Kansas City Mayor Pro Tem Alvin Brooks, argued that Article 1, Section 23, of the state constitution clearly prohibits concealed weapons.

That language reads, “That the right of every person 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.”

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon's office, which is defending the law, has argued that the language simply means that Missourians do not automatically have a right to carry concealed weapons, that it is for the legislature to regulate.

Gun rights supporters who have joined in the case have pointed to a New Mexico decision earlier this month in which that state's high court decided similar language did not prohibit concealed weapons but merely allowed lawmakers the power to regulate them.

In court on Thursday, Judge Duane Benton repeatedly asked Burton Newman, a St. Louis lawyer representing the planitiffs, to define the word “justify.”

After Newman gave several replies that involved historical information, Benton said: “The question was, ‘What is the definition of the word “justify” and where do you get that definition from?' ”

Newman replied, “Allow.”

Newman said that the framers of the 1875 Missouri Constitution clearly wanted to ban the carrying of concealed weapons, which they referred to as “an incalculable evil.”

Judges also asked Newman whether police officers would be prohibited from carrying concealed weapons if the language in the constitution prohibits concealed weapons.

The constitutional language “is addressed to citizens, not persons serving in an official capacity for the state, such as law enforcement officers,” Newman said.

Ohmer, the St. Louis judge, dismissed the opponents' arguments that the law also violates a provision of the Hancock amendment that forbids lawmakers to pass on unfunded mandates to counties.

Opponents say the law allows money from the $100 application fee that sheriffs may charge to be spent only on equipment and training.

That means the money could not be used to meet the costs of processing the applications, they argue, so the law imposes an unfunded mandate.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear those arguments, too, and spent more time on them Thursday.

Judge Stephen Limbaugh asked Richard Miller, a Kansas City attorney for the plaintiffs, whether there would be a Hancock violation if a county chose to pay for processing the applications itself without charging an application fee. The law says counties “may” charge up to $100 per application.

Miller said the section of the law that says the application fee money can be used only for training and equipment “is a statewide requirement that doesn't depend on local interpretation.”

Judge Michael Wolff asked Paul Wilson, Nixon's deputy chief of staff, how counties are to be compensated for processing applications if lawmakers have said sheriffs can use money from the fees only for training and equipment.

“We don't believe the legislature has done that,” Wilson said. “It begs credibility to suggest the legislature saw the Hancock issue . . . and then blew their own toe off by preventing that money to be used for the actual implementation of the act. It makes no sense.”

Gun rights supporters said that they thought they would prevail in the case but that it would be better to lose on the Hancock issue if they must lose.

If the law is shot down because the Supreme Court agrees that the constitution forbids concealed weapons, gun rights supporters would have to mount an effort to amend the constitution — with voter approval — to allow concealed guns.

To reach Tim Hoover, call

(573) 634-3565 or send e-mail to thoover@kcstar.com.