Missouri's concealed guns law at a glance

Kansas City Star ^ | Feb 27, 2004 | AP Staff

[KC Burke]

Key elements of Missouri's law allowing most adults to seek permits to carry concealed guns:

APPLICANTS

Missourians at least age 23 may apply to their county sheriff for a permit to carry concealed guns. Based on Thursday's Missouri Supreme Court ruling that otherwise upheld the constitutionality of the law passed last year, permits aren't required to be issued in four counties that argued to the court that the permit process was an unfunded mandate: Jackson, Cape Girardeau, Greene and Camden. An applicant must be a U.S. citizen and either live in Missouri for six months or be stationed in the state with the U.S. military. Applicants must undergo state and federal criminal background checks and pay $100 for a three-year permit, with a renewal cost of $50.

DISQUALIFICATION

Permits are denied to anyone who has been charged with or convicted of a felony; convicted of a violent misdemeanor; or twice convicted of driving while intoxicated in the previous five years; dishonorably discharged from the military; is mentally incompetent; or is believed by the sheriff to be "a danger to himself or others."

TRAINING

Applicants must complete an eight-hour training course on handgun safety and marksmanship, as well as the safe care, cleaning and storage of firearms. The course must include a live firing exercise during which applicants must hit a silhouette target placed seven yards away with at least 15 of 20 shots.

LOCATIONS

Concealed guns are prohibited in police stations, prisons, courthouses, hospitals, airports, amusement parks and sports arenas that seat at least 5,000. Guns also are prohibited, unless those in charge grant exceptions, at schools, colleges, child-care facilities, churches, casinos and bars. Concealed guns are allowed elsewhere, unless private property owners conspicuously post signs prohibiting them.

VIOLATIONS

People with concealed gun permits who carry weapons into off-limits places cannot face criminal charges but can be asked to leave. If they refuse to leave, law officers can cite them with a $100 fine for the first offense. A second offense within six months is punishable by a $200 fine and a one-year suspension of the permit. A third offense within a year results in a fine up to $500 and a three-year revocation of the person's concealed guns permit.

RECORDS

Applications for concealed gun permits are closed to public inspection, and sheriffs are barred from releasing the information.

VEHICLES

Missourians at least age 21 can conceal guns within the passenger compartment of their vehicles without having to satisfy any of the requirements for carrying a concealed gun.

[KC Burke]

Bang

[KC Burke]

Three articles posted

[KC Burke]

Three articles posted

[skip2myloo]

I don't understand the unfunded mandate argument - what's the purpose of the $100 fee and who gets the money ??

[cripplecreek]

believed by the sheriff to be "a danger to himself or others."

That could be a problem if you have a sheriff opposed to the laws.

[goldstategop]

The Sheriff. There are other costs besides the application fee the $100.00 doesn't cover. Which is why the Missouri State Legislature is going to pass legislation in the near future to have the state pick up the extra costs related to implementing the CCW law in the four counties where its currently in abeyance.

[KC Burke]

The statute was passed with inopportune wording in one clause. That clause said that the fee funds shall be used for "training and equipment."

Later it said that alternately, city Police chiefs could be authorized to do the whole issuance and paid the fee.

Missouri has a Constitutional Amendment dating back over twenty-five years called the Hancock Amendment. It has a provision to stop unfunded mandates.

Opponents of the law felt the using the absence of the wording relating to background checks, staff time, and all other costs they could accumulate should give them the best challenge. So they got some county taxpayers and county records from various counties and made that part of their suit along with other issues such as Missouri's wording regarding concealed carry in the Constitution.

The court upheld the basic law. It said the Hancock problem would not ban the law state-wide, but only in the four counties where actual cost proof was included in the suit.

Those four counties are relieved of issuing permits.

Greene, Camden, Jackson, Cape Girardau

Amending legislation fixing the wording will solve the problem.

Additionally the court said that future suits must contain a county by county proof for counties that the appellants want of keep from issuing the permits. This is a illuminated pathway for appeals, until the wording is changed.

[skip2myloo]

My goodness, how much do they think it costs ??

The Virginia fee is $50, and allegedly that covers the costs.

What are "court costs" for a speeding ticket, less than $100, I'd bet. Processing a CCW can't cost much more than processing a speeding ticket, can it ??

[goldstategop]

The gun banners will probably focus on stopping permits from being issued in Missouri's liberal counties - the ones that voted against CCW in a 1999 referendum.

[skip2myloo]

Change the wording of the law, the $100 shall be used to pay CCW processing fees, any excess may be used for "training and equipment."

That's an easy remedy.

[KC Burke]

That could be a problem if you have a sheriff opposed to the laws.

Yes, but such action would be subject to lawsuits and any sheriff who abused that wording could count on such.

All legislation has some provisions that can be abused, either by states of citizens.

It is best when you have an area of conduct where no legislation is needed at all.

[skip2myloo]

Yup, leaves the door wide open for capricious and arbitrary decisions, just like the St. Louis County police guy, what's his name Battle, who vows to "prosecute" anyone in his jurisdicition who is carrying, even if they have valid CCW from another MO county or state ??

This "exception" is so serious, in my view it excludes MO from being considered a "shall issue" state.

[goldstategop]

The liberal counties may well opt out of CCW. Its another instance of Democrats flouting the law of their state.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

I don't think there's really much wiggle room in that exception.

And clowns like the guy in St. Louis County are going to get their ****s sued off - and LOSE for their willingness to FLOUT the law they're supposed to uphold.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

They can't really opt out. The floodgates have opened.

[Mulder]

That could be a problem if you have a sheriff opposed to the laws.

If that's the case, get an out-of-state permit from Florida.

It will be recognized in Missouri, including the 4 counties that don't have to issue 'permits'.

And you'll be 'legal' in 25 other states with a Florida permit.

[skip2myloo]

I hope you're right, I used to live in MO, have lots of friends there, all over the state.

Would like to strap when I visit, especially in KCMO and STL.

Got friends in NEMO too, real Meth problem up there.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

I'd be very careful about that for a while. The powers that be in St. Louis have made it abundantly clear that they will arrest anybody caught legally carrying a concealed firearm in their jurisdiction, confiscate their firearm, and charge them with a crime.

Yes, you read that right.

If these criminals we have in charge of St. Louis (and I mean that literally, not figuratively, because of these people's FIRMLY STATED intention to BREAK AT WILL a law that they "don't like," to falsely arrest citizens and steal their property -- again I mean that literally as they have NO right to confiscate the firearm of an honest, legally carrying law-abiding citizen) don't back down, expect one or more very significant lawsuits to take place.

Disclaimer: We need to wait a while to see exactly what the shaking-out of this ruling is. Some of the legal minds around have advised that the SC ruling can't really be counted as effective for 15 days. If you should in the future be stopped and arrested by any of these persons in uniform with prior-stated criminal intent, DO NOT offer any resistance whatsoever or be anything less than excruciatingly polite. Expect a legal battle, and let the courts settle the matter. I personally would sue for all they're worth. But my advice is to avoid doing anything that you could possibly be (even illegally) arrested for.

Another Disclaimer: I AM NOT A LAWYER, AND HAVE NO ASPIRATIONS TO BE ONE. Your mileage may vary. Tax and license not included, void where prohibited by law.

[skip2myloo]

Yeah, I had heard that was Battle's position - said he would "prosecute" (even though I thought that was the DA's job).

Wasn't planning on visiting MO again until about June or so, hopefully it'll be sorted out by then.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Sounds like excellent advice.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

OK, I would have to say it appears unclear to me precisely what the actual current position of St. Louis County is.

From the article excerpt below (from stltoday.com), St. Louis CITY basically says they will neither arrest someone for legally carrying, nor confiscate their weapon (unless they're being charged with a [unspecified kind of] "violation."

However, they may well remove your firearm from you, apparently just because you're legally carrying a firearm, and that fact alone makes you somehow suspect.

Wonder how they would like to be treated the same way?

You can certainly detect the stink of an attitude here in the County: the fact that law-abiding citizens can now carry concealed weapons makes police work "more risky." More risky? Hell, anyone who doesn't care about the law and wants to carry a gun already has one in the car, and now law-abiding citizens are better empowered to help a police officer in trouble, and yet police work has suddenly become "more risky."

One of the recent articles I've read, in fact, contained a quote from a law officer who said he's been helped several times by armed citizens, who he said had possibly saved his life.

Anyway, I'm sure attitudes will change over the coming months -- even in St. Louis County.

---

[excerpt:]

Meanwhile, some police will be changing the way they approach drivers during routine traffic stops once the concealed weapons law takes effect.

What has some officers worried is that the law allows people 21 years or older to carry a weapon in their cars even without a permit.

"The first thing they are going to ask the driver is if he is carrying a gun," said St. Louis County Police Chief Ronald Battelle.

Most officers will take away the gun while in contact with the driver. Some officers will handcuff the driver and passengers while they retrieve the weapon, Battelle said.

"Safety will be foremost in all our minds," Battelle said. "Police work is a risky business at best. This just makes it more risky."

Officers may unload the weapon and secure it. Then they will check computer records to determine if the gun is stolen.

"The officer has a responsibility to make sure the gun is legal," McCulloch said.

The officer may put the weapon in the trunk of a passenger car or the toolbox of a pickup truck. Motorists can retrieve the weapon after the officer leaves.

"The police officer will return the firearm unless the individual is being charged with a violation," St. Louis Police Chief Joseph Mokwa said in a statement.