Missouri Concealed Carry Law fixed...St Louis City and County have to issue permits

[Jeff White]

Well, freedom to defend yourself is now legal in all of Missouri (or will be as soon as the governor signs the legislation. The hoplophobes who run St Louis City and County now have to issue permits.

Now if we can just import that idea across the Mississippi...

Jeff

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...B4482EAEC33D6A9B86256FF6005CB29B?OpenDocument

Bill passed to change concealed guns flaw
By David A. Lieb
Associated Press
05/03/2005

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- St. Louis residents will be able to apply for concealed weapons permits after Gov. Matt Blunt signs a bill aimed at fixing a flaw in Missouri's concealed guns law.

Senators gave final approval to the legislation Tuesday, and a Blunt spokesman pledged he would sign it into law.

The St. Louis sheriff's department plans to begin taking permit applications as soon as that happens, said Mike Guzy, administrative assistant to St. Louis Sheriff James Murphy.

St. Louis city and county are the only localities still not issuing permits more than 14 months after the Supreme Court upheld the legality of concealed guns. That ruling also said the law's funding mechanism could impose an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate on local governments.

St. Louis County won a follow-up court case exempting it from issuing permits because of the uncompensated costs. The county will decide whether to begin processing concealed gun permits after attorneys review the newly passed legislation, said county spokesman Mac Scott.

Legislative supporters said the bill eliminates any legal wiggle room for counties to continue to refuse to issue the permits.

"It ends all the Supreme Court challenges, all of the objections that the chief law enforcement officers have," said Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, an attorney who handled the bill.

The Senate passed the bill 29-3. The House passed the same bill 142-7 in March. Because it contains an emergency clause, the bill will become law as soon as Blunt signs it, instead of on the state's traditional Aug. 28 start date for new laws.

Concealed guns have been a contentious issue in Missouri for about a dozen years. In a nationally unique referendum, statewide voters narrowly defeated a measure that would have authorized concealed guns in 1999. That ballot measure was strongly supported in rural areas but overwhelmingly opposed in urban areas, such as St. Louis.

But legislators enacted a concealed guns law in September 2003 by overriding a veto of then-Gov. Bob Holden. The law allows most Missourians age 23 and older to receive concealed weapons permits from their local sheriffs after passing a firearms training course, clearing a fingerprint background check and paying a fee of up to $100.

The current law allows sheriffs to use the fee only for equipment and training -- not for personnel or for covering the $38 cost of the fingerprint background checks. Because of that, the Supreme Court said counties could be hit with new uncompensated costs -- a violation of the state constitution.

The legislation passed Tuesday lets sheriffs use the money to cover all costs stemming from the concealed guns law, including the background checks and the employment of additional staff. If the $100 fee is not enough to cover the costs, the legislation allows sheriffs to apply for reimbursement from the state Office of Administration.

The state budget awaiting final legislative approval this week includes a $1 appropriation, which could later be increased, in case the state needs to pay out any claims.

While the fee language has been clouded in legal uncertainty, sheriffs have adopted a number of creative means to implement the law. Some have asked applicants to write two checks -- one directly to the Missouri State Highway Patrol for the fingerprint costs, the other to the local government for the portion of its costs that can legally be covered.

As of Tuesday, the patrol had received 17,488 background check requests for concealed gun applicants.

Contrary to the emotional debate that surrounded the concealed guns law previously, lawmakers passed this year's follow-up bill with hardly any objections. St. Louis County Sen. Joan Bray, a Democrat, was one of the few to vote against it. Bray said she preferred to leave the law flawed, because it gave St. Louis County a reason to not issue the permits.

"They messed it up, and I'm not supporting them fixing it, because I'm opposed to the whole concept," Bray said.

------

Concealed guns bill is HB365.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Bray said she preferred to leave the law flawed, because it gave St. Louis County a reason to not issue the permits.

I guess she just doesn't care for the idea of commoners keeping and bearing arms.

 

[bogie]

Fun part is that most of the folks who wanted one in the city/county just sent their money to Florida.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

In a nationally unique referendum, statewide voters narrowly defeated a measure that would have authorized concealed guns in 1999. That ballot measure was strongly supported in rural areas but overwhelmingly opposed in urban areas, such as St. Louis.

As I recall, there were serious allegations of ballot fraud in St. Louis country, and then Governor Carnahan refused to either certify OR reject the election results, in order to prevent referendum supporters from having legal standing to bring a challenge. (State law requiring that challenges be filed after election results are certified.)

In other words, it probably DID pass back in '99.

 

[Leatherneck]

The hoplophobes who run St Louis City and County now have to issue permits.

Never underestimate the ability of gun-grabbers to drag their heels, Jeff. Here in VA, we still encounter innovative lefties who find creative ways to constrain our rights despite a pretty clear mandate in law. They're kinda like ivory-billed woodpeckers: you never can be certain you got the last one.

TC

 

[Technosavant]

I would still recommend that St. Louis City & County residents send their cash to Florida; those municipalities are incredibly anti-gun. Every other county (St. Louis City is NOT in St. Louis County; a peculiarity of MO) found a way to get it done while they threw up legal challenges and did everything they possibly could to avoid it. The "unfunded mandate" thing was not a reason, and it wasn't even much of an excuse- it was just the only obstacle they could use. Why you would desire to help a municipality like that by giving them your money (and you know they will charge the full maximum, not keep it to the lowest necessary figure) is beyond me.

 

[StopTheGrays]

The law allows most Missourians age 23 and older to receive concealed weapons permits

Why 23 and not 21? Any reasoning behind it?

 

[Jeff White]

Update

Well it's by appointment only in St Louis City...in a few weeks....and St Louis County won't comment until after it's signed into law.

So does Missouri law permit you to sue bureaucrats who deliberately drag their feet?

BTW there is a poll at the link to the article.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...5ED8CE5E210D71FD86256FF70013B574?OpenDocument

Gun permit holdouts will lose excuse
By Jo Mannies
Post-Dispatch Political Correspondent
05/03/2005

The Missouri Senate approved and sent to the governor Tuesday a bill that fixes the fiscal flaws that had allowed the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County to hold off issuing concealed weapons permits.

But it's likely to be weeks, if not months, before either jurisdiction - the state's only holdouts - make such permits available.

Gov. Matt Blunt expects to sign the measure into law but won't do so until after the legislative session ends next week, a spokesman said.

And in the city, the concealed-weapons applications will be taken by appointment only, Sheriff James W. Murphy said Tuesday. "We're going to do it as conveniently as possible, but we don't want lines of people" waiting to apply, the sheriff said.

A special telephone line may be installed to take calls from potential applicants, Murphy said. But he added that it will be at least a month before his office is even ready to accept applications, because it's waiting for the arrival of a new fingerprint machine. The device will be used to fingerprint all concealed-weapon applicants.

St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley isn't commenting until his staff has studied the bill, spokesman Mac Scott said. "First, we've got to wait until it's signed into law."

The county and the city had been the state's last holdouts in granting the permits to those residents 23 and older who seek to carry concealed weapons. Under state law, applicants pay a fee of up to $100, and must complete a firearms training course as well as clear a fingerprint background check.

The Legislature had approved that law in 2003, over the veto of then-Gov. Bob Holden. Also objecting were officials in St. Louis and St. Louis County - where voters had overwhelmingly opposed the idea in a 1999 statewide vote.

Tuesday's vote dealt with the chief argument that city and county officials had used in their subsequent court fight: that the law amounted to an unconstitutional, unfunded government mandate because of restrictions on how the $100 fee could be spent.

The state Supreme Court concurred with that funding argument early last year, while also upholding the legality of concealed weapons.

In Tuesday's vote, the state Senate passed by 29-3 a measure that allows local governments to use the $100 fee to cover any of their expenses involved in handling the permit applications. The House overwhelmingly approved the same bill in March, 142-7.

The bill allows local jurisdictions to seek extra money from the state, if the $100-per-person fee isn't enough to cover processing costs.

Murphy and Scott said $100 should be enough.

In St. Charles County, the sheriff's office charges $90.70 for each applicant. "We're not making money on it," said Lt. Craig McGuire said. The county has issued just over 900 permits since it began processing them in March last year.

Statewide, as of a month ago, about 16,000 permits had been issued. Jefferson County was the jurisdiction that had issued the most - almost 1,000, at a cost of $100 each, said Sheriff Oliver "Glenn" Boyer.

The bill is HB 365.

The Associated Press and Tim Bryant and Robert Kelly of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

 

[Erich]

Great news; thanks for the heads-up.

 

[dloken]

How does it work if someone aged 21/22 is carrying on an out of state permit in MO? Still legal?

 

[sch40]

finally!

This is an excellent suprise! I was just talking to some people in a local gun store who were saying the city and county would never start issuing. By the tone in the article, it seems even after the modifications are passed, they will sit on their heels for a while, but how long can they do that?

--sch40

 

[mountaindrew]

I am a St. Louis Co resitent, and I am in the process of applying for my FLORIDA permit. I was already planning to when the new law came around, and I have now considered my options, and will not change my plans. I am very pragmatic about such things, so the political aspect of it isn't my main reason. The two reasons I care abouit are these: Florida permits are valid in more states, and Florida permits will not show up on Missouri cops licence plate checks if I get pulled over. I figure this could mean less harrassment.

dloken: yes, a 21 year old with an out of state permit IS legal to carry under the new law, assuming it is legal in the state where the permit is from.

 

[Technosavant]

sch- they will sit on it as long as possible, but the city can only claim they are waiting until their new fingerprint machine. I am not surprised; any excuse will do. I would expect a couple weeks worth of "calibration" once they get it.

That's why I like St. Charles County- our county council passed a resolution calling the payment an "application fee" (or something like that) in order to sidestep the issue. Although FL would have been a better deal, such actions deserve a reward, IMO.

 

[sch40]

Right now, since I'm a resident of St. Louis county, I have my permit from Florida. I loved the way that the St. Charles police chief side-stepped the funding nonsence and issued a separate fee. If I lived in St. Chuck, I would get a permit from them. I like how they don't play dirty politics like the city and county do (or at least not as much). If the county starts issuing them, I'm not sure if I'm going to give them my money. I'll have to see how much they charge (for out-of-staters, the FL permit is just as much to renew as it is to get in the first place: ~$150).

MountainDrew: are you sure about the age issue? I thought that the way different state permits worked was that you had to abide by the CCW law of the state you are in, rather than the state the permit is from. I'm not sure, I just thought I'd mention it since it could be a sticky situation for someone who gets mixed up.

--sch40

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

MountainDrew: are you sure about the age issue? I thought that the way different state permits worked was that you had to abide by the CCW law of the state you are in, rather than the state the permit is from. I'm not sure, I just thought I'd mention it since it could be a sticky situation for someone who gets mixed up.

The general rule is that you have to abide by the terms of your permit, even when you're not in the state that issued your permit. If you have a FL permit then the FL CCW laws apply to you, even if you're in MO. I don't think that MO applies any special restrictions to out-of-state permit holders, but I could be wrong.

I hold an Indiana permit and I often travel to St Louis. I was plesantly surprised when I learned that Missouri's CCW laws included universal reciprocity. Very few states recognize Indiana permits, given how easy it is to obtain a permit here. Now, if only Illinois would get with the program...

 

[Standing Wolf]

Why 23 and not 21? Any reasoning behind it?

If leftist extremists' irrational fears count as "reasoning," yes, there was some.

 

[Gray Peterson]

It was set at 23 due to the fact that one Senator refused to vote for it if it wasn't raised to that high of an age. Remember that Senator Charles Dolan had to be flown in from Guantanimo Bay in order for the bill to override the governor's veto. We're lucky the bill passed at all, given that fact.

Look for this to be changed in the next few sessions. New Mexico lowered it's minimum age from 25 to 21, so there is hope.

As for the statement that "You have to follow the laws of the state", this is true, you do have to follow it. However, the law is clear that ANY out of state permit exempts you from the felony UUW statute, and it makes no age distinction.

 

[dloken]

If leftist extremists' irrational fears count as "reasoning," yes, there was some.

Is there a reason why you blame everything on "leftist extremists" ?

 

[only1asterisk]

Is there a reason why you blame everything on "leftist extremists" ?

It's a pretty safe bet?

David

 

[dloken]

It's a pretty safe bet?

Not really, around these parts anyone to the left of Tom Delay is a left wing extremist.

 

[Jeff White]

Well the Post Dispatch agrees with you guys:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...527AA6328838C5B886256FF80016D84A?OpenDocument

Run on gun permits may not come
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
05/04/2005

Jeremy Hilliard is looking forward to the day when he can carry a concealed weapon legally in St. Louis County.

The 24-year-old Florissant resident has spent many hours training with a handgun, and in the near future he plans to apply for a concealed-weapons permit - from Florida.

While such permits have been authorized in Missouri for more than a year, St. Louis and St. Louis County have refused to issue any. This has led many area residents to apply for permits from states such as Pennsylvania, Utah and Florida. They allow out-of-state applications, and Missouri honors their permits.

A change in Missouri's law, expected to be approved next week, is forcing the city and county to fall in line with the rest of the state. This has local law enforcement officials bracing for an influx of permit applications, an influx that many local gun experts believe won't happen.

"This comes two years too late," said Jim Keller, owner of Keller Gun Works in Florissant. "Most everybody who wanted a permit has already gotten one. They went to some other state and spent the money that could have gone into the county."

Missouri became the 46th state to legalize concealed-weapons permits in 2003, over the objection of then-governor Bob Holden and officials in St. Louis and St. Louis County. Last year, the city and the county decided against issuing the permits, saying the new law violated the state's Hancock Amendment, which prohibits unfunded mandates.

The original law said the sheriff's revolving fund, which was supposed to pay for issuing the permits, could be used only for training and equipping law enforcement officers. The city and county said that without using those funds, they could not afford to issue permits. The state Supreme Court backed that argument early last year, while also upholding the legality of concealed weapons.

On Tuesday, the state Senate passed a measure that allows local governments to use the cost of issuing permits to cover any expense involved with the process. Gov. Matt Blunt is expected to sign the bill as early as next week.

The changes removed the city and county's sole objection. While officials with the county have refused to comment, officials with the city say they should be ready to begin offering permits within a month.

But according to Jim Stephens, owner of Bullseye Indoor Shooting Range, their efforts come too late to capitalize on the region's desire for the permits. "Thousands of people have already gone out of state," he said. "The rush is over. Some people will still sign up, but not as many as they expect. The county fought this for two years and now they have nothing to show for it."

Statewide, about 16,000 background checks have been requested for applications for concealed-weapons permits. A Missouri permit costs $100 for three years and $50 to renew. A Florida permit costs $117 and lasts five years.

Stephens is one of 20 people in the St. Louis area certified to teach the state's mandatory gun safety course. He has taught about 1,500 people in the past year and a half and estimates that about 10,000 city and county residents have received out-of-state permits.

"There's no way to know for sure, but it's easily that high," he said. Hilliard said he is glad to hear the county will soon offer the permits, but he still plans to get his from Florida. "They last longer and don't seem to be as much of a hassle," he said.

Dale Schmid, president of the Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri, said he is glad to see the state is forcing the city and county to abide by the law. But, said Schmid, he's not counting his chickens before they hatch. "This county has a long, disturbing history of trying to block this," he said. "It would not surprise me if they are up there right now trying to figure out a way to stop it."

Reporter Clay Barbour
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 314-727-6234

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Is there a reason why you blame everything on "leftist extremists" ?

In this case, words like "irrational" "leftist" and "extremist" are accurate descriptors of the politicians in St. L who have been trying to block their citizens' access to concealed weapons. If the shoe fits...

Stephens is one of 20 people in the St. Louis area certified to teach the state's mandatory gun safety course. He has taught about 1,500 people in the past year and a half and estimates that about 10,000 city and county residents have received out-of-state permits.

"There's no way to know for sure, but it's easily that high," he said. Hilliard said he is glad to hear the county will soon offer the permits, but he still plans to get his from Florida. "They last longer and don't seem to be as much of a hassle," he said.

Capitalism at work

 

[Jeff White]

Apparently they fixed the wrong part of the law....

Of course you have to expect that from the editorial page of the Post Dispatch:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...FEEE249160C10FB486256FF900324A30?OpenDocument

MISSOURI LEGISLATURE: Lock and load

05/06/2005

THE MISSOURI LEGISLATURE has fixed the funding glitch that let St. Louis and St. Louis County refuse to issue permits to carry concealed guns. Gov. Matt Blunt says he'll sign House Bill 365 into law.

But in its haste to get more guns on the street, the Legislature somehow missed all the other flaws in a law that is dangerously riddled with loopholes. The law still:

Allows people to keep guns out of sight in the passenger compartments of their cars, creating a potential threat to police officers. A driver can have a gun in his car, even without a permit to carry the gun and no training in its use.

Closes records with information on gun permits, making it impossible for citizens to figure out if a threatening neighbor or co-worker or abusive boyfriend is licensed to carry a gun.

Fails to make it a crime to violate rules against carrying concealed guns into public places, including schools, churches, day care centers, gambling boats and sports arenas. If a fan takes a concealed gun into a Cardinals game and someone notices, all security staffers can do is eject the fan from the park.

After the bill authorizing concealed weapons became law, Sen. Mike Gibbons, R-Kirkwood, pledged that the Legislature would take another look at it. He was responding to angry Kirkwood and Webster Groves constituents who felt betrayed when he switched sides and voted to override the governor's veto of the law.

Mr. Gibbons acknowledged then that "Law enforcement has raised a lot of questions, and there is a tremendous amount of emotion out there. At some point when we revisit the law, we should revisit all of the issues that are out there."

The Legislature revisited the law, but it didn't revisit "all the issues" that were out there. Mr. Gibbons explained through a spokesman that there was bipartisan support for fixing the funding glitch, but "zero support to touch anything" else.

Too bad Mr. Gibbons, whose vote for concealed guns helped him get the post of president pro tem of the Senate, didn't exercise his leadership to eliminate the dangerous gaps that remain in the law.

 

[Technosavant]

I see the Compost-Disgrace is still at it.

In the time such things have been allowed, have we seen rampant misbehavior on the part of permit holders? Not at all. Part of the work in getting a permit is to establish that a person is a law-abiding (does not threaten neighbors or anybody else) citizen. If a person has a problem with being threatened, the proper course of action is to contact the police. They will be able to determine the permit status, and if necessary, revoke the permit. Absolutely nothing can be done if you are aware of somebody's permit status.

 

[KaceCoyote]

I wish I understood the 23/21 thing. Ok even better. I'm 20, I have a few rifles. All of which could theoretically be used to penetrate police vests at a good distance. I can own a shotgun, I can go to war and be issued the M9 Service Jameretta. However woe is me when I seek to purchase what typically boils down to the least powerful, least accurate member of the firearms family.

How is me waiting for November to obtain a P226 or CZ going to change anything vrs me just owning it now? I assume the state legislators would prefer me to defend my home with my AK clone, which will send rounds ripping through the neighborhood even if I hit my target. I'm all in favor of no CCW until 21, alot've fellas just aint mature enough to be perfectly honest with you. No handgun until 21 however? Blasphemy. Here I am a law abiding citizen who's never received anything more serious than a traffic ticket. I pay my own way through college here, work my tail off and these yahoos wanna try and tell me I'm not mature enough? Maturity in my experience, rarely has a terrible lot to do with age. Experience breeds wisdom, not age.

So anyway, here I am a "good guy". Pay my taxes, do as much volunteer work as I can get off too and am going to college to better myself. I feel cheated, I feel screwed over and unjustly biased against. This law, would not stop me from owning a handgun if I was terribly motivated to get one for any cost. I've entertained the thought at times, I think alot've know a guy who knows a guy who can typically get you just about anything...if you ask. So is this law protecting people, or merely restricting their 2nd amendment rights based on an arbitrarily decided age?


-KacetryingveryhardtokeepitonthestraightandnarrowCoyote