JEFFERSON CITY - Arguments before the Missouri Supreme Court took an unexpected turn Thursday over the right carry concealed weapons -- focusing on the economic, rather than the constitutional, impact of the legislation.
While attorneys for the plaintiff began by aruging the concealed weapons legislation was unconstitutional, the court asked relatively few questions about that issue -- instead zeroing in on whether the legislation violated the Hancock amendment.
Attorney Richard Miller, of Kansas City, argued to the court that the measure represented an "unfunded mandate," because counties were being asked to foot the bill for processing and handling concealed weapons request.
Assistant Attorney General Paul Wilson called that argument "irrational," and said the legislation allowed counties to collect fees of up to $100 for each permit issued to recoup their costs. Wilson said those fees were more than enough for counties to fund the measure, and therefore the law could not be considered a violation of Hancock.
"It begs credibility to suggest that the legislature understood the Hancock issue," Wilson said, "that they knew the importance of complying with it, put in place a funding mechanism -- and the blew their own toe off by preventing that money from being used in the actual implementation of the act."
Local legislators agreed, saying the whole point of counties being able to charge fees was to provide a funding source.
"They can charge a fee for processing (the permit)," said Rep. Kevin Wilson, R-Neosho. "I mean, that just doesn't wash at all."
Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City, said the measure is predicted to actually raise money for the counties -- and so the fees for the licenses would include more than enough to the costs.
But it's a one-sentence provision for where that money can be spent that may cause more trouble than anyone realized. According the new concealed weapons law, the money counties get from the application fees are to be deposited in a special fund known as the "county sheriff's revolving fund." That money can then be "expended at the direction of the county or county sheriff."
However Miller, the plaintiff's attorney, argued that a subsuquent provision -- which directs that the sheriff's fund "shall only be used by law enforcement agnecies for the purchase of equipment and to provide raining" -- limited that money only for those two areas.
In other words, Miller said, that language prohibited the counties from using the money to do what it was intended to do: to process the permit applications.
He cited the cost of fingerprint background checks, for example, as costing counties $38 per application, and questioned whether counties could use their fees to pay for that processing.
Attorney Wilson said the plaintiffs were misreading the provision, and it should be clear Hancock did not pose a problem for the new law. Local legislators said they needed time to look carefully at the legislation before offering an opinion on the matter. They did say they were surprised the court chose to focus its questions on the financing of the law, rather than the constitutional argument.
Opponents of concealed weapons had argued that a particular section of the Missouri Constitution prohibited citizens from carrying concealed weapons -- and issue the high court judges devoted little of their time to issue during Thursday's hearing. But observers caution that the number of questions was not always indicative of the court's leanings.
Regardless of which argument the court ultimately chooses to focus on, local legislators say they will be disappointed if the law is struck down.
"There's going to be a lot of mad people in my district, me included, if they rule this unconstitutional," Rep. Wilson said.
The Supreme Court could issue its ruling on the matter as soon as next week.