(Missourinet) – Attorneys for a man sentenced to prison for planning a shooting at a Wal-Mart in Bolivar say he is in prison for his thoughts.

Blaec Lammers was arrested three years ago when police said he was plotting a mass shooting. He was convicted of assault and armed criminal action and sent to prison for 15 years.

Lammers’ attorney, Donald Cooley, says Lammers never committed a crime, never hurt anyone, and when he had thoughts about the possibility of shooting someone with his rifles, he gave them to his girlfriend’s father.

“Their premise of their entire case and where the fatal weakness occurs is the fact that there is a total lack of any evidence that this gentleman, at the time he purchased weapons, had any intent whatsoever to harm people,” said Cooley. “He did have thoughts of obviously doing something and he did everything he can, at the earliest stop possible, to dispossess himself of those weapons.”

The state’s attorney Richard Batholomew argues Lammers told police he had more than thoughts about a shooting. He says during interrogation, Lammers answered an investigator who asked him if he had a plan by saying, “I was just going to walk in and wait until the police got there. Just walk in, start shooting, wait ’till the police got there.”

Lammers’ arrest made national news in the months after a mass shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, theater.

The Court is being asked to reverse his convictions. It could make a decision at any time.

(Missourinet) – The state Supreme Court has again heard arguments about whether the gun rights amendment approved by voters last year would allow some felons to possess firearms.

Arguments in three cases were heard this morning in which the state is appealing the dismissals by lower courts of gun possession charges against three men. They argued the law against felons having guns is not constitutional after voters approved Amendment 5 last year, making the right to have guns unalienable in Missouri.

David Roland with the Freedom Center of Missouri argues the language in the amendment means only violent felons should be denied guns.

“What it means is that the government bears the burden of proving that the person at issue committed a violent crime,” said Roland. “That should not be difficult. It’s the kind of a factual determination that courts make all the time, in various settings.”

Assistant Circuit Attorney Aaron Levinson said the legislature, in creating the amendment language, wasn’t asking voters to keep only violent felons from having guns.

“That same majority that brought forth this amendment could have changed the felon in possession law. They could have removed the language prohibiting all convicted felons from possessing firearms. They could have chosen to define, ‘violent.’ They could have listed offenses which would prohibit someone from having firearms. They did not do so. They chose to leave the statute as it was,” said Levinson.
The Court already ruled in another case that Missouri’s current law is constitutional, and St. Louis Assistant Circuit Attorney Veronica Harwin says the court got it right.

“The Court should continue to follow those precedents and find that the current law is constitutional and I don’t believe it needs to be rewritten,” said Harwin.

Roland says in that earlier ruling, the Court wasn’t given a thorough enough argument.

“No one who was part of the case really wanted to see it get its fullest extent, and so the Court was handcuffed,” said Roland. “They did not have all the information or the arguments. No one reminded them – you’ve got 60 years’ worth of cases explaining how you’re supposed to analyze a constitutional provision.”

Amendment 5 was sponsored in the legislature by state senator and candidate for Attorney General, Kurt Schaefer. He says it does not allow felons to have guns, nor is it intended to.

The Court could make a decision at any time.

(Missourinet) – Senator McCaskill is seeking compensation for veterans exposed to mustard gas during World War Two experiments, but she says the Department of Defense isn’t releasing information she’s requested. She asked for Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s help to access a Department database.

“Why is everyone not opening up these records and doing everything we can to get the word to these people. There are a lot of folks that were subjected to mustard gas experiments. The VA wants to point at you and I’m hitting a wall,” said McCaskill.

“They (DOD) are saying that even if I have the name of the veteran and the privacy waiver, they will not give me information out of your mustard gas database without a letter from the Chairman. I don’t know why this is so hard,” said McCaskill. “I really need a commitment from you all today that you will get me the information. Why is trying to help veterans who may have been exposed to mustard gas so hard? Would you all be willing to make that commitment that you will work with my office. They (DOD) just keep throwing up roadblocks. I’ve been at this for months.”

Carter said he was not aware of the issue but assured McCaskill that his office will honor her request.

Regulations were issued in the early 90s to compensate victims, but some say the VA has made the process difficult for veterans.

(Missourinet) – Missouri’s senior senator is defending how Hillary Clinton performed before a Congressional Committee yesterday when it asked her questions related to the death of four Americans in Benghazi.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D), a supporter of Clinton’s presidential bid, said on CNN Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi tried to fit what happened in Benghazi into a narrative, and failed.

“It’s awkward to watch them try to force the facts around some notion that she was unengaged, that she didn’t care, that she was cavalier, that she wasn’t involved, that she wasn’t knowledgeable,” said McCaskill during a break in Thursday’s hearing.
Clinton has been criticized for not giving those four Americans security they asked for, but McCaskill says Clinton had asked for more money for embassy security.

“All of these requests come in and you have to have experts who evaluate them and rank the risks and decide where they should move, and where they can’t move, based on the budget they were given,” said McCaskill.

McCaskill said the hearings didn’t plow any new ground.

“I think this is the 32nd hearing. We have 11 published reports. We have eight different committees who have investigated, and have we really heard anything new today?” asked McCaskill, who calls the hearings a waste of taxpayer money.

Republicans maintain Clinton is to blame for security lapses in Benghazi and accuse her of avoiding scrutiny and changing her story.

(Missourinet) – Missouri House leaders have exchanged messages about work on a new intern policy for the chamber.

“Other than a vague outline of possible policy changes informally distributed a couple of months ago, no action has been taken on this matter,” said House Democrat Leader Jake Hummel in a letter to House Speaker Todd Richardson last week and released to the public Wednesday.

Hummel criticizes the length of time taken in a House Republican-led effort to create a new intern policy after former Speaker John Diehl, Junior, resigned after admitting to exchanging sexually-suggestive texts with an intern. He notes the house formed a committee to investigate creation of a state park in Oregon County two days after that story gained traction, but five months have passed since Diehl’s scandal.

Richardson issued a statement of his own, saying a task force he appointed has, “worked diligently with House attorneys and consulted with officials from several universities,” toward a “comprehensive intern policy.”

He says that work, which extends to revisions of the sexual harassment policy for all House members and staff, is in its, “final stages.”
“As I’m sure Rep. Hummel is aware,” said Richards, the proposal will next go to a House committee where it will be the subject of public hearings.

The statement does not give a timeline for hearings and none have been scheduled.

(Missourinet) – Republicans and some Democrats at a state House budget subcommittee meeting have continued to question Governor Jay Nixon’s blocking of some spending in the state budget, much of it from the departments of Health, Mental Health, and Social Services.

Nixon said he must withhold $46-million in the state budget because Missouri won’t get $50-million in tobacco settlement money he and lawmakers had expected. He says the restrictions are necessary to keep the budget balanced and protect the state’s AAA-credit rating.

Jennifer Tidball with the Department of Social Services said the money was meant for what would have been new programs. She tells lawmakers the restrictions mean the “status quo” will continue.

“What the programs would have been designed to do was – that individual who’s now accessing the emergency room, providing them another avenue of care, for example, besides the emergency room. That’s just an example,” Tidball said.

Social Services Director Brian Kinkade suggested a theory about why the restrictions hit the programs they did.

“Because the restriction was tied to the Tobacco Settlement funds and the Tobacco Settlement funds are appropriated to Medicaid, then all else equal, the Medicaid program has a $50-million hole in it, at this point,” said Kinkade.

The restrictions will mean a one-percent raise for some health care providers participating in Medicaid rather than three-percent. Tidball explained the Department measures that affect in terms of access for patients.

“Whether or not providers would choose to no longer be a part of the Medicaid system, and thus, our participants don’t have as many choices or can’t get in to see a doctor because we don’t have enough providers,” said Tidball.

Representative David Wood (R-Versailles) said the restrictions will affect foster care even as the state’s children’s division says more foster homes are needed.

“I don’t understand why we would take a provider cut in a program that is essential to the state, that is going to effect the children in the state, and when you have a director calling for increases, isn’t there other places we could have taken this money that would have had less of an effect?” Wood asked.

Republicans say they might attempt to overturn those restrictions if they are still in place in January. They argue the state has a budget surplus right now and say that makes the restrictions unnecessary and unconstitutional.