Shooters, What's The Deal In Missouri?

[Kennedy 0]

What the heck is going on in Jefferson City?
[that's the capital of Missouri, not St. Louis]

Clicky 1

Quote

While Missouri sorts out law, some get permits elsewhere
As statute stands now, other states' licenses will be honored here

JEFFERSON CITY - For the past several days, Vicky McCloskey, a secretary for the sheriff's department in Pennsylvania's Centre County, has been processing applications for concealed weapons permits from Missouri residents.
For a $20 fee, a copy of a drivers license and a filled-out form, Missouri residents can get a Pennsylvania concealed weapons permit if they pass a criminal background check, according to McCloskey.

"We've been sort of bombarded from Missouri," McCloskey said in a telephone interview. "They want a permit from our state."

One of the provisions of Missouri's new concealed weapons law allows people to carry hidden guns in Missouri if they have "a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state."

Some concealed weapons proponents in Missouri are applying for permits from other states in order to carry guns in Missouri while sheriffs and legal experts try to sort out the impact of a decision last week by the Missouri Supreme Court.
(cont)

Clicky 2

Quote

Supreme Court ruling leaves conceal and carry up in the air, but sheriff says he will issue permits anyway

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the general constitutional right of some Missourians to carry a concealed gun Thursday.

Some gun supporters like the National Rife Association see this as another victory for the conceal and carry law, which was vetoed by Gov. Bob Holden but then overridden by legislators.

The law was to be enacted Oct. 11 of last year but opponents of the law blocked it on grounds it violated a constitutional section.

On Thursday, in a 5 -2 decision, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled the opponents' interpretation of the section was wrong.

But the ruling has left some lawmen baffled about how to proceed.

State Rep. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, and other legislators were not sure what the recent ruling meant for supporters of gun rights. He said "it's a little up in the air right now."

That's because while the court ruled that it's OK to carry a concealed weapon, it also decided Cape Girardeau, Jackson, Greene and Camden counties do not have to issue permits.

These opponents challenged the law by saying it violated the Hancock Amendment because it imposes new duties on local sheriffs without providing enough funding to cover the costs.

Trial evidence had been presented in these four counties about the local costs. The Supreme Court said the issue was not ripe yet for Missouri's other 110 counties, where no cost evidence had been presented.

The concealed gun law requires sheriffs to charge a fee of up to $100 to be deposited into a local fund, which can be spent only on law enforcement equipment and training.

The plaintiffs claimed that prohibited sheriffs from using the fees to pay for the required applicant background checks or for the personnel needed to administer the law -- thus constituting an unfunded mandate.
(cont)

ps - Any dotcommers to jump with if I get out there?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Isn't this just the NRAs answer to gay marriage?

Seems like the exact same tactic.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Isn't this just the NRAs answer to gay marriage?

Seems like the exact same tactic.

Sounds like it to me. What one state does effects every other state more now than it ever has in the past due to our increased mobility.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Kennedy 0]

Not sure where you're going here quade. (A) There's already an amendment in the NRA's favor, it just get trampled on. (B) This is a state government issue. (C) The state passed a law starting Right To Carry legislation, over the veto of the Governor. Then some anti gunners sued saying RTC was against the state constitution. The state supreme court ruled against the anti gunners, but put up a muddled maybe in the paperwork. That's why people are going to Pennsylvania, a state that shares reciprocity with Missouri, rather than wait for everyone to sort out the exact steps. It's also cheaper in Pennsylvania ($20 vs. up to $100, or more after the ruling). The citizens are going outside the state so they can appreciate the rights the legislature granted them while the courts and sheriffs figure out the particulars.

So is it me, or is this the exact opposite of the SF gay marriage thing once you check the facts?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Actually, states control who they share concealed carry reciprocity with. Some states recognize permits form 25 or more other states. Other states recognize their own and no others. 5 states still issue and recognize no concealed carry whatsoever.

Having a permit is on state has no bearing on another state's soveriegn right to accept or refuse it in their own borders.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Actually, states control who they share concealed carry reciprocity with. Some states recognize permits form 25 or more other states. Other states recognize their own and no others. 5 states still issue and recognize no concealed carry whatsoever.

Having a permit is on state has no bearing on another state's soveriegn right to accept or refuse it in their own borders.

That's because it hasn't been challenged hard enough yet. If someone really fought the issue they could probably win it based on this part of the constitution:

Quote

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

That is why states have to recognize marriages and driver's licenses issued from other states. Most states have laws limiting this recognition. I'm not sure if it has been challenged in court though. The fines are usually so small when the law is broken that no one bothers with it.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[quade 4]

There are differences, but there are also similarities in the tactics.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

In this case, a state granted/recognized the citizen's right to carry. There is a paperwork snafu.

In SF, the mayor is breaking state law to grnat what is specifically prohibited.

No one in Missouri is breaking any laws. So what's similar?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

You think pro rights people aren't fighting this tooth and nail on every front they can think of?

There's no way around the way things are right now, short of a federal law requiring reciprocity.

Article four doesn't apply here. The reason states don't have to recognize other states' permits is because each state has different requirements for getting their permit. States with more restirctive processes have the right not to recognize a permit from a state more liberal than their own. Hence the Atty Generals work things out and states have reciprocity agreements with each other.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

The reason states don't have to recognize other states' permits is because each state has different requirements for getting their permit. States with more restirctive processes have the right not to recognize a permit from a state more liberal than their own.

States have different requirements for marriage and driver's licenses too. Do you know when this ruling was made and by what court? I would like to see how they explained it. I would like to see how they explained away this article.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Kennedy 0]

That's actually a good question, and I'm writing the AL Atty Gen along with my senators and state legislators. [it's easy when they all get the same letter]

It'll be interesting to see what they answer, and when.


I'm not too sure I actually want to see how they rationalized away this part of the constitution, though. It was hard enough reading the US Supreme Court trying to rationalize away the first amendment with respect to the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law. It took them 300 pages and I didn't see one sentence explaining clearly how it was a good idea revoking free speech of everyone except candidates and media news corporations.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

You might be right on some of the tactics being used.

I guess the difference is that homosexuals have no overriding constitutional rights granted them specifically at the federal and state level.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

I really don't see it. It would be similar if Californians went to a state where gay marriage is legal, then came home. The difference is is specifically banned in CA and specifically granted in Missouri.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Sure they do.

Amendments 9 and 10.

GWB simply wants to take that -specificaly- away from them.

I should also add that the GWB Amendment proposal would only the the second time in the history of the US that an amendment would take away rights from the general population rather than grant them. We all know how well that went over the last time. Of course, this time I don't see the Mafia getting involved in opening up a lot of gay bars.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

The difference is is specifically banned in CA and specifically granted in Missouri.

I'm not an anti-gun advocate, by any stretch of the imagination, but I do see one similarity. The laws of one state are effecting (or affecting, I can never remember the difference) another state. In Missouri they are recognizing another states concealed carry law (at their own discretion). They are probably doing this because they can't get a concealed carry law to pass in their own state. Florida, for example, will have to recognize gay marriages conducted in California. IOW, in each instance people are getting around a law in their own state by getting licenses in a state with more liberal laws. That is about where the similarities end.

I'll bet $1,000 now that if Florida tries to not recognize gay marriages conducted in California (if they finally become legal) it will go to the Supreme Court (courtesy of the ACLU) and they will be forced to recognize them. Any takers?

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Kennedy 0]

Um, bill, number ten says the states can do as they please concerning marriage, if you just look at the amendment. and if there is a new amendment, that qualifies as enumerated in the constitution. if you want to complain about "removing" marriage rights, take it up with the states. they are the ones with the power to change things, according to law and practical reality.

and I still really don't see the connection this has to the Missouri situation.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mnischalke 0]

Right, right, right. Guess I don't have my head all in this tonight.

I just was digging through a box for something and realized I have enough parts to build another 1911. hmmmmm what to do, what to do...

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

They are probably doing this because they can't get a concealed carry law to pass in their own state.

OK, maybe some background info is in order:

Missouri legislatures passed concealed carry law and sent it to the governor. He vetoed it. The legislature overrode his veto, making it law. So they did pass CCW law in Missouri.

The law was postponed by a judge on constitutional grounds. It was appealed to the state supreme court, where the court said the challenge was bogus, and upheld the law.

The question comes in where the court said some county sheriffs don't have to issue permits because of a funding clause in the state constitution and some funny wording in the law.

But the fact remains the state has concealed carry now. Read the full text of both articles, they may explain it better than I do.

And all that's why I don't see the similarity.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[nathaniel 0]

not to be flippant or anything, but I'm a little amused whenever someone characterizes A and B as "similar but different".... You've narrowed it down by as much as 0.1% there fella, thanks a lot.



nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Kennedy 0]

OK, don't pull a kallend here. Since no one from Missouri has responded, and you're not from there, go with the flow.

Are they the same, or are they different?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Diet Pepsi has differences from Diet Coke, yet there are similarities and I'm thinking a lot more than 0.1%.

No. The gun and gay issues aren't the same, but the TACTICS being used are similar.

What's so freekin' difficult to see here?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

One is people exercising their rights that are recognized by their home state elsehwere because there is some administrative snafu going on.

The other is people going to a place that is breaking the law to make a point, and to try to get new rights recognized that neither their home state nor the destination will pay credence to.

In one place the battle is over and the mop up is going on. In the other, the battle has barely been joined.

I honestly don't see the similarities other than interstate actions. I mean the people in Missouri aren't even traveling.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*