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
To: neverdem; *bang_list
2
posted on
12/19/2003 4:00:10 PM PST
by
glock rocks
(molon labe)
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.)
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.
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
To: jdege
Ping!
6
posted on
12/19/2003 5:17:44 PM PST
by
WorkingClassFilth
(DEFUND NPR & PBS - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
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.
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 -----)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson