Preacherman
Member
From the Daily American Republic, Poplar Bluff, MO (http://www.darnews.com/articles/2004/01/13/news/news5.txt):
N.M. ruling could impact concealed gun case here
By DAVID A. LIEB ~ Associated Press Writer
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- A recent decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court could boost the cause for concealed guns in Missouri.
The Missouri Supreme Court is to hear arguments next week on whether a state law allowing most adults to carry hidden guns violates the state constitution. In a similar challenge to a similar law, New Mexico's highest court decided last week that the law did not violate that state's constitution.
Although a decision by one state's supreme court is not binding elsewhere, state courts often look outside their jurisdictions to see how other judges are interpreting similar laws under similar circumstances.
Kris Kobach, a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said the New Mexico ruling "should increase the chances" that the Missouri concealed guns law will be upheld.
"It is useful as a guiding authority that the Missouri court can look to if it wishes," said Kobach, who is a Republican candidate for a U.S. House seat from Kansas.
Both the Missouri and New Mexico legislatures passed laws last year allowing most adults to obtain concealed gun permits after passing background checks and firearms training courses.
Both states also have constitutions guaranteeing the right to bear arms, with an exception. The New Mexico Constitution states: "but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." The Missouri Constitution states: "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Lawsuits were filed in both states claiming their respective constitutions prohibit people from carrying concealed guns, thus making the new laws invalid.
In October, a St. Louis circuit judge agreed and issued an injunction against Missouri's law, resulting in the appeal to be heard Jan. 22 by the state's highest court.
The case in New Mexico went straight to the Supreme Court, which after hearing arguments Jan. 5 issued a verbal decision upholding the concealed guns law against the constitutional challenge. No written ruling has been issued yet.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, in a filing last Friday with the state Supreme Court, said the recent New Mexico ruling "squarely rejected" the arguments of the Missouri plaintiffs.
"The constitutional provision is similar, the argument is similar, and the justices on the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected that argument," Nixon said in an interview Monday. "This court in New Mexico has further given credence to our boring, yet reasonable argument."
Nixon and concealed gun supporters contend that Missouri's constitution states only that there is no basic right to carry concealed guns, implicitly leaving it to the Legislature to either ban or allow them.
Kansas City attorney Richard Miller, who represents the people challenging Missouri's concealed guns law, said important historical differences between the two states could make it difficult to transfer the logic of New Mexico's court to Missouri.
New Mexico's constitutional provision was adopted in 1911. Missouri's constitutional gun language stems from 1875, when the state was emerging from years of post-Civil War violence and the likes of Jesse James and his gang remained at large.
Miller said New Mexico's constitutional convention lacks the transcripts that preserved Missouri's debate. And he claims Missouri's transcripts show that constitutional delegates -- or at least the one person quoted on the issue -- did not want people carrying concealed guns.
"New Mexico does not have the constitutional history that we do and does not have the pure history of violence we did leading up to the (constitutional) convention" -- important facts because courts often look to contemporary events to interpret constitutions, Miller said.
But supporters of concealed guns say Miller and his New Mexico counterparts are the ones trying to twist history.
"This is the first time anyone in American legal history had ever argued that a state bill of rights outlawed concealed weapons," said Washington attorney Stephen Halbrook, who represents the National Rifle Association.
The NRA, although not a party in the lawsuit, has filed briefs in support of the Missouri law. Halbrook plans to attend the Missouri Supreme Court hearing, just as he did in New Mexico.
"Frequently, sister states look at opinions that have been rendered that are relative," Halbrook said. "They are not binding but they are persuasive, and I think that's certainly the case here."
N.M. ruling could impact concealed gun case here
By DAVID A. LIEB ~ Associated Press Writer
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- A recent decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court could boost the cause for concealed guns in Missouri.
The Missouri Supreme Court is to hear arguments next week on whether a state law allowing most adults to carry hidden guns violates the state constitution. In a similar challenge to a similar law, New Mexico's highest court decided last week that the law did not violate that state's constitution.
Although a decision by one state's supreme court is not binding elsewhere, state courts often look outside their jurisdictions to see how other judges are interpreting similar laws under similar circumstances.
Kris Kobach, a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said the New Mexico ruling "should increase the chances" that the Missouri concealed guns law will be upheld.
"It is useful as a guiding authority that the Missouri court can look to if it wishes," said Kobach, who is a Republican candidate for a U.S. House seat from Kansas.
Both the Missouri and New Mexico legislatures passed laws last year allowing most adults to obtain concealed gun permits after passing background checks and firearms training courses.
Both states also have constitutions guaranteeing the right to bear arms, with an exception. The New Mexico Constitution states: "but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." The Missouri Constitution states: "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Lawsuits were filed in both states claiming their respective constitutions prohibit people from carrying concealed guns, thus making the new laws invalid.
In October, a St. Louis circuit judge agreed and issued an injunction against Missouri's law, resulting in the appeal to be heard Jan. 22 by the state's highest court.
The case in New Mexico went straight to the Supreme Court, which after hearing arguments Jan. 5 issued a verbal decision upholding the concealed guns law against the constitutional challenge. No written ruling has been issued yet.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, in a filing last Friday with the state Supreme Court, said the recent New Mexico ruling "squarely rejected" the arguments of the Missouri plaintiffs.
"The constitutional provision is similar, the argument is similar, and the justices on the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected that argument," Nixon said in an interview Monday. "This court in New Mexico has further given credence to our boring, yet reasonable argument."
Nixon and concealed gun supporters contend that Missouri's constitution states only that there is no basic right to carry concealed guns, implicitly leaving it to the Legislature to either ban or allow them.
Kansas City attorney Richard Miller, who represents the people challenging Missouri's concealed guns law, said important historical differences between the two states could make it difficult to transfer the logic of New Mexico's court to Missouri.
New Mexico's constitutional provision was adopted in 1911. Missouri's constitutional gun language stems from 1875, when the state was emerging from years of post-Civil War violence and the likes of Jesse James and his gang remained at large.
Miller said New Mexico's constitutional convention lacks the transcripts that preserved Missouri's debate. And he claims Missouri's transcripts show that constitutional delegates -- or at least the one person quoted on the issue -- did not want people carrying concealed guns.
"New Mexico does not have the constitutional history that we do and does not have the pure history of violence we did leading up to the (constitutional) convention" -- important facts because courts often look to contemporary events to interpret constitutions, Miller said.
But supporters of concealed guns say Miller and his New Mexico counterparts are the ones trying to twist history.
"This is the first time anyone in American legal history had ever argued that a state bill of rights outlawed concealed weapons," said Washington attorney Stephen Halbrook, who represents the National Rifle Association.
The NRA, although not a party in the lawsuit, has filed briefs in support of the Missouri law. Halbrook plans to attend the Missouri Supreme Court hearing, just as he did in New Mexico.
"Frequently, sister states look at opinions that have been rendered that are relative," Halbrook said. "They are not binding but they are persuasive, and I think that's certainly the case here."