Hancock

JEFFERSON CITY — Former U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock believes Missourians should have the right to carry concealed handguns.

But he also believes that local governments should be free of unfunded mandates imposed by the state, which are prohibited under the state amendment that bears his name.

And though it's tough for him to say it, Hancock asserts that the amendment “very well could undo” the concealed weapons law.

“It's pretty obvious that it (the concealed weapons law) is an unfunded mandate,” said Hancock, a Republican from the Springfield area.

The Missouri Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging the concealed weapons law, which allows Missourians 23 and older who pass a background check and who undergo training to carry concealed weapons.

In November, a St. Louis circuit judge dismissed arguments that the new law violated the Hancock amendment. Instead, Judge Steven Ohmer declared the law unconstitutional based on a section of the constitution that says the right to bear arms “shall not justify” the wearing of concealed weapons.

But attorneys Richard Miller of Kansas City and Burton Newman of St. Louis didn't let the Hancock issue go, raising it on appeal at the Supreme Court.

In last week's hearing, judges focused far more on the Hancock issues than they did on questions about whether the constitution prohibits concealed weapons. Most observers came away with the impression that the Hancock amendment could play a pivotal role in deciding the case.

“There were, obviously, quite a few questions about the Hancock amendment,” Newman said. “We're encouraged by that.”

Adopted by voters in 1980 after being initiated by Hancock, the amendment says that the revenues of state government cannot grow any faster than the income of Missourians. It also prohibits the state from “requiring any new or expanded activities by counties and other political subdivisions without full state financing, or from shifting the tax burdens to counties and other political subdivisions.”

The law allows sheriffs to charge as much as $100 on each application for a concealed gun permit. But Miller and Newman argue that the law imposes an unfunded mandate because it says the money “shall only be used by law enforcement agencies for the purchase of equipment and training.”

That means sheriffs can't use the money from the application fees to cover the $38 cost of conducting background checks with the Missouri Highway Patrol and the FBI, Newman and Miller contend. Counties also can't use the money to pay the extra staff that might be needed to process the applications, the pair argue.

Hancock agrees this is an unfunded mandate.

“They're saying to the sheriff, ‘Here's what you've got to do. Now it's up to you to raise the money,' ” Hancock said. “The sheriff has to do it (issue the conceal-carry permits). Unless the state provides the money to do it with, then that's an unfunded mandate.”

Several sheriffs have testified that they plan to take the money that they normally spend on training and equipment and use it to pay for any additional costs imposed by the law. Then they will pay for training and equipment with the money from the concealed handgun applications.

Newman and Miller argue that this also would violate the Hancock amendment because the shuffling of funds would amount to a tax increase without a vote of the people.

Hancock agreed.

“As soon as they say the cost of providing that service is $38 and then X amount of dollars will be spent over here in the general fund to be used for training and equipment, then it becomes a tax,” he said.

State Rep. Larry Crawford, the Centertown Republican who sponsored the concealed weapons bill, has said there could be dire consequences if the Supreme Court throws the law out on Hancock grounds.

He said the state also has required local police departments to collect racial profiling data and required counties to set up sex offender registries. The legislature did not provide any money for these duties or for a host of other new activities required of local governments, he said.

Still, concealed weapons supporters say they would be much better off if the law is tossed out on Hancock grounds. If the state's high court decides the constitution prohibits concealed weapons, gun-rights supporters would have to mount an effort to amend the constitution.

That would need the support of voters, who have rejected a proposal to allow concealed weapons.

On the other hand, if the law is declared in violation of the Hancock amendment, lawmakers could write a new bill. Conservatives have championed the Hancock amendment for years as a model for good government. They also have championed concealed weapons as good public policy.

“I support the conceal-carry law, but I also support the fact that the state can't mandate additional costs at the local level,” Hancock said. “I don't really want to agree with them, but I do.”

To reach Tim Hoover, Jefferson City reporter, call 1-(573) 634-3565 or send e-mail to thoover@kcstar.com.