Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge rejects second gun challenge
Post-Dispatch ^ | Dec 18, 2003 | Tim Bryant

Posted on 12/19/2003 3:52:44 PM PST by neverdem

Edited on 05/11/2004 5:35:21 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

A decision today by a St. Louis judge leaves intact his ruling that has Missouri's concealed gun law on hold at least until the state Supreme Court takes up the matter next month.

Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer rejected claims the concealed carry law violates the state's Hancock Amendment. Opponents of the law claim the law violates the spending-limit amendment because the Legislature failed to appropriate money for its implementation.


(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; ccw; chl; concealedcarry; guncotrol; secondamendment
FYI
1 posted on 12/19/2003 3:52:45 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; *bang_list
do we need the second amendment?  molon labe

2 posted on 12/19/2003 4:00:10 PM PST by glock rocks (molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Opponents of the law claim the law violates the spending-limit amendment because the Legislature failed to appropriate money for its implementation.

An outright lie, but lying Democrats is an oxymoron.

Part of the CCW license fee goes to the county to cover the costs.

3 posted on 12/19/2003 4:19:40 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Interesting that the judge based his decision on a provision of the 1873 MO constitution or so it was reported. Rather like saying the Articles of Confederation trumps the present US Const. in my opinion. No matter, I have already started my own CCW and my truck is suitably outfitted.
4 posted on 12/19/2003 4:29:52 PM PST by Hill-William
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hill-William
1873 MO constitution?
What provision is that?

To the best of my knowledge the CCW restriction was not made a provision until 1875, and was subsequently included in the 1876 Constitutional Convention.
It was never amended in a legal manner, i.e., by a vote of the people, but done so by reconstructionist legislators.

If you can provide me with any source showing an 1873 provision I would appreciate a link to same.

5 posted on 12/19/2003 5:14:06 PM PST by Drammach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Ping!
6 posted on 12/19/2003 5:17:44 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (DEFUND NPR & PBS - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hill-William
Could it be that many judges were taught by leftist law professors? That as students they were accepted because of their leftist tendencies?

Judges view themselves as the non-democratic branch of government. Could it just be as simple as they will do whatever it takes to validate their leftist leanings? If so, they should never have been allowed to become judges.
7 posted on 12/19/2003 5:20:54 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Sooner or later, these constitution-trampling black-robed commissars are going to have to be bitch-slapped back into their constitutional corner.


8 posted on 12/19/2003 10:21:07 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson