Letters to the Editor
01/27/2004
Concealed-weapons law deters criminals

In reference to the Jan. 24 editorial today, "Jack Krewson's battle," it's too bad Missouri didn't have a concealed-weapons law in 1995. Perhaps the possibility that Jack's father, Jeff Krewson, might have been armed would have deterred the thug from the attempted carjacking. While we all sympathize with his family, his father's murder has nothing to do with the concealed-weapons issue. His family's loss does not justify restricting the ability of others in this state from defending themselves against similar acts if they see fit.

Furthermore, the Post-Dispatch's position that the law is "lousy" because permit holders can carry guns into restricted areas without the deterrent of arrest assumes that they will do so - an assumption not supported by statistics from states with similar laws and restrictions.

According to the law, a permit holder can be fined and lose his permit for up to three years if he carries a gun into a restricted area, which is not likely given those consequences. Permit holders will respond to posted prohibitions by refusing to patronize those business, etc. - not by violating the law.

F.A. Ruecker
Manchester
As published As submitted
 

 

Once again, the Post-Dispatch beats the table in regard to concealed weapons, tugging at heartstrings to provoke gun-control sympathy for 11-year-old Jack Krewson - whose father, paradoxically, might still be alive if we'd had a concealed-weapons law in 1995.

Lyda Krewson has apparently stated that a legal gun in her car's glove compartment would not have saved her husband's life. That may be, in her case. But I'm personally acquainted with a man whose wife and young daughter were saved at least from kidnapping, and probably from rape and murder, by just such a legal gun.

And of course, if we'd had a concealed-weapons law in 1995, some other armed, law-abiding citizen may well have stopped the criminal before he ever reached the Krewsons' car. But, as always, your paper makes it clear that irrational emotion is what matters, not facts., keep banging that table. It's what we've come to expect.

John Woodman
Springfield, Mo.

 There's an old lawyers' saying: "If you've got the facts, pound the facts. If you don't, pound the table."

Once again, the St. Louis Post tiredly beats the table in regard to concealed carry, tugging at heart strings to provoke gun control sympathy for 11-year-old Jack Krewson -- whose father, paradoxically, might still be alive if we'd had a concealed-carry law in 1995.

Lyda Krewson has apparently stated that a legal gun in her car's glove-box would not have saved her husband's life. That may be, in her case. But I'm personally acquainted with a man whose wife and young daughter BOTH were saved at least from kidnapping, and probably from rape and murder, by just such a legal gun.

And of course, if we'd had concealed carry in 1995, some other armed, law-abiding citizen may well have stopped the criminal before he ever reached the Krewson's car.[CRLF]

But, as always, your paper makes it clear that irrational emotion is what matters -- not facts. So, keep banging that table. It's what we've come to expect.

John Woodman

 

Editorial
CONCEALED WEAPONS Jack Krewson's battle

01/24/2004

IN THE EYES of a 11-year-old boy who has seen deadly gun violence, the issue of concealed weapons is simple. The Missouri Constitution says that the right of people to arm themselves does not justify carrying concealed weapons.

"If it's in the constitution, it's in the constitution," said Jack Krewson, the son of St. Louis Alderman Lyda Krewson. In 1995, Jack was in the back seat of the family car in front of his house in the Central West End when his father, Jeff, was shot and killed by a would-be carjacker. Jack accompanied his mother Thursday to hear state Supreme Court arguments on her suit to block Missouri's new concealed-weapons law.

Like many of those who filled the court chambers to overflowing, Lyda and Jack Krewson feel passionately about guns. But the legal arguments hardly touched on public safety or the right to carry guns. They focused instead on whether part of the law violates the Hancock Amendment. It is an ironic twist that the biggest conservative win of the past legislative session is imperiled by the conservative Hancock revision designed to hold down state taxes.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer agreed with Jack Krewson. Last November, Judge Ohmer ruled that the Missouri Constitution prohibits carrying concealed weapons. He threw out the new concealed weapons bill, passed in September over Gov. Bob Holden's veto.

Burt Newman, the attorney representing Ms. Krewson and others challenging the law, told the court that the key phrase - "shall not justify the carrying of concealed weapons" - was added after the Civil War when armed bands roamed the state.

But Assistant Attorney General Paul Wilson countered that the constitution had never been interpreted as Mr. Newman and Judge Ohmer read it. The only sensible explanation for the language, Mr. Wilson said, was that it was added to clarify that the right to bear arms does not prevent the Legislature from banning concealed weapons, if it chooses.

Concealed weapons are a bad idea. And Missouri's concealed-weapons law is a lousy law so full of loopholes that people can carry guns into schools, churches and day care centers without being arrested for a crime.

Unfortunately, just because a law is bad doesn't make it is unconstitutional. Mr. Wilson's interpretation is convincing. The Supreme Court judges didn't seem terribly interested in that part of the argument. That may mean they already have made up their minds on the constitutionality question. Instead, they spent most of their time reviewing the Hancock challenge, which Judge Ohmer had rejected.

Under the new gun law, local jurisdictions issue concealed weapons permits for which they may charge as much as $100. By law, the money has to go into the county sheriff's revolving fund for equipment and training. That means the fees aren't available to pay the actual cost of issuing the concealed-weapons permits. Under the Hancock Amendment, the Legislature must fund any mandates it imposes on local governments.

Mr. Wilson argued that the law didn't have to be interpreted as blocking the use of the fee money for issuing the permits. But some of the judges were unconvinced.

If the court strikes down the law, or part of it, on this technicality, the Legislature could probably patch it up. In that case, opponents of the concealed-weapons law should be preparing a political strategy: a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban concealed weapons. Winning at the polls is probably the only way Jack and Lyda Krewson - and hundreds of thousands of Missourians who oppose concealed weapons - can prevail.

 


Thanks for alert, Bob.