Replies

Legal escape and evasion

On the contrary--it looks like conservative interpretation of existing law. The Hancock Amendment says "no unfunded mandates," and that means no unfunded mandates. Legislators should either have permitted the use of the $100 fee to cover all costs of implementation, or they should have allocated additional funding to cover those costs. Any other interpretation of the amendment would be selective application--judicial activism, if you will. Courts should follow the law as written.

Fix the law. It doesn't appear that the Missouri SC is particularly interested in finding a non-existant prohibition againsts CC in the Missouri constitution. Not this go-round, at least.

Legislators should either have permitted the use of the $100 fee to cover all costs of implementation,...

Exactly. By over-constraining the use of the fees for concealed licenses, they did indeed create an unfunded mandate. A better law would set the fee to cover the reasonable costs of processing the license - in other words, to be revenue neutral - and then use that as a template for all provided services. Let those who want a service pay for it instead of extorting money by force (called, 'taxes') to pay for a service not wanted by everyone, even if the service is a good idea like processing concealed handgun licenses.

"The state contends that, under the Hancock amendment, the only relief available is not injunctive relief but rather a suspension of a political subdivision's obligation to perform new or expanded duties until adequate funds are provided. It asserts that any "unfunded mandate" claim under the Hancock amendment are not presently capable of review because it is based solely on speculative future duties and expenses and because Brooks and the other plaintiffs lack standing to bring such a claim. The state responds that Brooks' second amended petition failed to raise any allegations of a Hancock amendment violation. The state argues that Brooks and the other plaintiffs lack standing to claim the 2003 amendments are void for vagueness and that such an argument lacks merit because the amendments give adequate notice of the conduct being regulated. The state further responds that the 2003 amendments do not violate article I, section 1 because the general assembly, as the duly elected representatives of the people, passed the amendments by properly using political power derived from the people.

Bull's Eye responds that the 2003 amendments do not violate the Hancock amendment because no appropriate party has demonstrated any damages because of the new legislation. It argues the court properly found the 2003 legislation is not void for vagueness because the legislation is susceptible to a reasonable and practical construction that supports it. Bull's Eye contends that article I, section 1 was not violated because the general assembly exercised its constitutional authority in passing the 2003 legislation. Bull's Eye asserts that the court acted within its discretion when it considered and then denied Brooks' and the other plaintiffs' motions to amend their pleadings."

The state also argued that the police investigate crimes as per law. It would mean that every time a criminal law was passed, more funding would have to be approved to the state.