• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

MO--No duty to inform but, do you any way?

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
Do I have a problem with informing anyway? Yes.
Should departments train their LEOs to better deal with lawful carry? Yes.
Do I tell students to do it regardless? Yes. See my why explanation below. I also explain that they do not have to unless asked.
Do I notify regardless? Yes.
Does every encounter merit disclosure? No, but put yourself in the shoes of that LEO.
Recording device? Should be standard equipment.

What would YOUR reaction be if you found out later that the citizen was armed and wasn't courteous enough to tell you. After all, they inform us by wearing openly don't they. (yes, that's an argument FOR open carry) I promise you that if you didn't know the person and had no reason to run that person for warrants that your brain will run wild. It's tough to maintain a calm mindset of: it was probably just lawful carry. Think about it from the LEO perspective. If they treat every encounter as lawful carry the criminals will be able to mount more attacks upon LEOs and the citizenry. If they don't treat them as lawful carry they can become hyper-vigilant and that creates a problem on the other end of the spectrum. There truly is no middle ground. Middle ground means the LEO would need to profile behaviors, clothing, and the relative crime stats within their service area.

Why do I notify? Because it sets me in the pattern (muscle memory) of notifying upon contact with a LEO so that if I happen to be in a State that has a mandatory notification law I will not have to worry about knowing, I'll already be in that mode.


Now if any of us are the kinds of idiots that inform to the the presence of a firearm...or use the term GUN when disclosing,rather than simply the presence of a CCW endorsement (might vary in other States, so habits can become a problem) then you likely deserve to be treated like an idiot for the manner you chose to inform. Simply tell the LEO that you have a concealed carry permit IF you're carrying or transporting.

That said, I do believe that mandatory notification laws need to disappear as they set up the lawful carrier for potential criminal charges. After all, most people will get nervous while carrying when a LEO contact occurs. It takes a few turns on the merry-go-round to overcome that nervousness. Do not mistake a disrespectful attitude and langauge choice (cockiness) with nervousness, the two are not the same.

Besides, if you happen upon the diligent LEO, they'll already know through this process:
Cause for the stop.
Run the plate.
Run the registered driver for wants, identify a potential of CCW. (easier for Mo licensed drivers than in some other States)

The number on your DL and your CCW endorsement, even if on separate cards, are the same number. The two are linked within the DOR. So if you get that diligent LEO they'll already know before they ever approach the vehicle, which should prompt the immediate: "Driver's license please. (if it's the RO, then it's simple) I noticed you have a CCW endorsement. Is a firearm present in the vehicle?" If that LEO is professional he or she should simply ask you to state where.
 
Last edited:

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
(easier for Mo licensed drivers than in some other States)

The number on your DL and your CCW endorsement, even if on separate cards, are the same number. The two are linked within the DOR. So if you get that diligent LEO they'll already know before they ever approach the vehicle, which should prompt the immediate: "Driver's license please. (if it's the RO, then it's simple) I noticed you have a CCW endorsement. Is a firearm present in the vehicle?" If that LEO is professional he or she should simply ask you to state where.



If it's linked to the DL...how would LEO know before they approach the vehicle and have your DL in their hand?
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
What would YOUR reaction be if you found out later that the citizen was armed and wasn't courteous enough to tell you.

Depending on the circumstances, courtesy goes out the window when it is a 'consensual contact' that I did not consent to before the officer made contact. Hence the constant refrain "Why am/Am I being detained?" Not very courteous or respectful of a citizen towards a LEO if comments by LEOs on LEO-centric forums are to be believed.

After all, they inform us by wearing openly don't they.

Really?....Really? Well heck, then every uniformed LEO should be strong, vocal advocates for OC. Sadly, the opposite is typically the case.

I promise you that if you didn't know the person and had no reason to run that person for warrants that your brain will run wild.

Then LEOs must be scared witless given that approximately 1 in 30 citizens in Missouri is likely CCW. Especially so, considering a CCW endorsement is not required to be lawfully armed in your vehicle.
This potentially equates to every other vehicle stopped by LE has a lawfully armed citizen as either the driver and/or passenger, or both.
Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties. 571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: (1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or
3. ....Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person twenty-one years of age or older transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM

It's tough to maintain a calm mindset of: it was probably just lawful carry.

Once again not my problem. Unless facts prove otherwise, every citizen contacted by a LEO who is armed, is armed lawfully.

Think about it from the LEO perspective. If they treat every encounter as lawful carry the criminals will be able to mount more attacks upon LEOs and the citizenry. If they don't treat them as lawful carry they can become hyper-vigilant and that creates a problem on the other end of the spectrum.

It is my opinion that this is not a dilemma that the vast majority of LEOs are concerned with. They observe, they assess, and then they act based on the totality of the facts before them.

There truly is no middle ground. Middle ground means the LEO would need to profile behaviors, clothing, and the relative crime stats within their service area.

I imagine that the vast majority of LEOs do this already and rightly so. Or else a Terry Search would be conducted of every citizen contacted by a LEO, especially if the contact is the result of a traffic stop. The citizen has broken the law. But, I rarely hear of LEOs doing Terry Searches on the side of the road for a speeding infraction.

The vast majority of LEOs are courteous and very professional. They are reasonably well educated, intelligent, personable, easy going citizens, just like me, doing a very demanding and difficult job. But, until they prove to me that they deserve something more than the cooperation mandated by statute, that is all they will garner from me, statute mandated cooperation.
 

mechanicworkman

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
200
Location
St. Louis
REALteach4u,

You state in the first paragraph that:

“Do I tell students to do it regardless? Yes. See my why explanation below. I also explain that they do not have to unless asked.

I gather from this statement that you are a CCW instructor. Now I took my course from an instructor a little over 5 yrs ago that stated it very much the same way. Where in is where I find that the problem begins, is your personal opinion that notifying is the way to go wherein the LAW says that we do not have a duty to inform.

I have an open mind and understand that you and other instructors like you make these statements to students in an attempt to cover your bases keeping the best intentions of the students in mind but, given that advice you’re going against what any lawyer would advise.

By identifying your subjecting yourself to further questions as well as the possibility that something you can and will be used against you. Not only that but, you are giving up your constitutional rights. Rights that are not easily come by, Rights that men/women have fought and died to protect.

On a hope that because you were forthright maybe the officer will give you some leniency or build some trust. Honestly, If I am pulled over for a traffic violation I would rather just be issued my ticket and be on my way & not even be there long enough to build some trust between us.

Also from your statement I am led to believe that if asked if we have a weapon that we MUST identify that we do.
When I believe the officer can ask anything he wants but, we are NOT required to answer but, if we do answer we must answer truthfully. ---cannot lie that is a crime

Now I am just the average citizen and I understand that people take ccw classes with the hopes of learning at least the basics of carrying legally without giving up my rights.

An important part of this is covering traffic stops and I fully believe that telling students that they should “inform” only is setting about the course of events that could lead to that person loosing those rights, under nothing more than a premise of trying to make the officer feel better.

I myself look back on the instructor that I took my course with and I have some definite hard feelings where I believe he was interjecting his personal feeling into things rather than stating fact. I recently went back to the instructor for some updated training I needed to get Missouri CCW. & again more advice that was not in line with the law. Through a couple emails we were able to get it sorted out.

I understand that when we are stopped we have options but make sure the students understand the options they have and giving it a blanket answer telling them to inform each time is I believe bad information.
Now someone can correct me if I am wrong but, in summery Missouri has NO duty to inform. Further Even if asked if I have a weapon during the stop I am NOT required to answer . However it may build some trust between yourself and the officer you chance putting yourself in jeopardy by doing so.

The thing that I find most disturbing I see in a lot of cases where Open carry/CCW incidents occur and citizens not trying to give up their rights either do not answer or avoid the question entirely are viewed as trying to cause problems or make the incident worse. I find this appalling to each of us that we cannot stand together and back each other when people are doing nothing more than trying to stand up for our rights and not be walked on by the members of our government for nothing as noble as the greater good of the people.
 

mechanicworkman

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
200
Location
St. Louis
Realteach4u,

Also to clarify yes I am in line with your understanding as well in regards to CCW permit holders in that when asked by law enforcement to produce CCW permit we must it is in the statute we are required to carry it and produce it when asked but, I do not read where we are required to notify that we are carrying a weapon……..seems a mute point to me and even a technicality of why would any officer be asking to see a permit when they do not know if we are armed in the case where CCW would come into play.
It would seem to me and I am sure any other rational person an officer would only be asking to produce a permit if we had either been searched and found to have a weapon on us or to have gone out of our way to notify when not required to and now the officer is digging for something. -----either of which case I see a lot of possibility of a negative outcome
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
You are only required to 'display' your endorsement upon request, AND, only when you are CCW. Typically a LEO is given the endorsement but it would be interesting to see the look on a LEO's face when you say 'no, you may not hold it, but you may look at it', it is not a crime to 'fail to comply'. I think I'll try it if I get nabbed in the future.

There is NO statute that requires you to inform a LEO that you are armed. It is no business of a LEO whether or not you are armed, ever. If the LEO wants to know whether or not your are armed, absent any criminal activity on your part, force the LEO to conduct a Terry Search.

If you are being detained for a traffic law violation, your firearm is not relevant to the infraction. Again, if the LEO wants to know whether or not your are armed, force the LEO to conduct a Terry Search.

The LEO will have to justify a Terry Search conducted during a traffic stop for speeding.

Start your recording devices and keep on, keeping on.
 

hazardous0388

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
20
Location
springfield mo
You are only required to 'display' your endorsement upon request, AND, only when you are CCW. Typically a LEO is given the endorsement but it would be interesting to see the look on a LEO's face when you say 'no, you may not hold it, but you may look at it', it is not a crime to 'fail to comply'. I think I'll try it if I get nabbed in the future.

There is NO statute that requires you to inform a LEO that you are armed. It is no business of a LEO whether or not you are armed, ever. If the LEO wants to know whether or not your are armed, absent any criminal activity on your part, force the LEO to conduct a Terry Search.

If you are being detained for a traffic law violation, your firearm is not relevant to the infraction. Again, if the LEO wants to know whether or not your are armed, force the LEO to conduct a Terry Search.

The LEO will have to justify a Terry Search conducted during a traffic stop for speeding.

Start your recording devices and keep on, keeping on.

This is a question regarding the "terry search" comment. I googled it to find the meaning since i didnt know what it was, and caMe across the meaning of it being due to "reasonable" suspicion of a crime. How will that help you on a traffic stop?

And also if a LEO asks you if you have a firearm and you resist to answer, can he/she ask you to exit the vehicle and pat you down to see if you are carrying?

Will they normal get off the hook doing it by saying it was for their safety?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
A officer can do a Terry Search, for his safety, at his discretion, if you have violated the law, speeding violation in this case. He has no duty to articulate his justification for the Terry Search to you, you have violated the law.

If you are OC he will confiscate your firearm, slap on the cuffs, sometimes, and demand ID. Do not give him your state issued ID, give him your name and address.

If he confiscates your ID while you are on foot because he sees a pistol on your hip, he has violated your 4A right. And, in Missouri, will likely have violated a couple of other state statutes as well.

You can be arrested in Missouri for exceeding the posted speed limit.
RSMo 544.216 ....may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or has violated any ordinance over which such officer has jurisdiction.... http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5440000216.HTM

Do cops arrest folks for 5-10 MPH over the posted limit? Almost never. If you are driving, you being armed is not a component of his probable cause relating to him stopping you. The firearm is not a component of your 'crime' of speeding. Don't even get me started if you happen to be a passenger. Therefore, you being armed, if lawfully armed, can not be considered by the cop beyond his safety.

If he does a Terry Search, for his safety, you must submit to that limited search. If he states that he is arresting you, you must submit. There is no legal justification in Missouri for you to resist a unlawful arrest (RSMo 575.150.4). If he arrests you he must tell by what authority he acts (RSMo 544.180).

Sue the crap out of him and his department/city, later.

The officer can not search for anything else on your person or in your vehicle. You are not required under the law to answer a question regarding whether or not you are armed. A CCW endorsement is not required while in your vehicle if you meet the requirements as set forth in RSMo 571.030.3.

If you 'OC' a concealable weapon in your vehicle the officer's definition of concealed comes into play. But, it'll be a hard row to hoe for the officer to justify getting you on a weapons violation if he does a Terry Search in a NO-OC jurisdiction. He compelled you to exit your vehicle, where you are lawfully 'OC' in your vehicle, he made you violate the law by demanding that you exit the vehicle. Just because he can't see your firearm does not mean that it is concealed. But, unfortunately, only a judge can determine whether or not the cop's definition of concealed is reasonable or not.

Only you can decide how to address the inform/do not inform issue. But, there is no statutory burden for a citizen who is lawfully armed to notify/inform a LEO that he is armed, ever.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I'm not sure I understand your question, but here goes anyway.

It is not a matter of help or hinder, a Terry Search does not help you at all, it only helps the cop.

The cop disarms you, your confiscated property is now in the hands of a potentially negligent/incompetent individual. Your safety is actually diminished when you are disarmed by a cop. A Terry Search is not about your safety, ever, contrary to the court's 'reasoning', but only about the cops safety.

Know the law, exercise your rights within the confines of the law.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
If you tell a cop you have a gun, 85% of the time he'll want it (for his home collection). So you may as well just say "here, take my gun, I don't want it anymore"
 

hazardous0388

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
20
Location
springfield mo
In here hr states for force a leo to make a terry search. This is what im not understanding. Why would you want a terry search?

You are only required to 'display' your endorsement upon request, AND, only when you are CCW. Typically a LEO is given the endorsement but it would be interesting to see the look on a LEO's face when you say 'no, you may not hold it, but you may look at it', it is not a crime to 'fail to comply'. I think I'll try it if I get nabbed in the future.

There is NO statute that requires you to inform a LEO that you are armed. It is no business of a LEO whether or not you are armed, ever. If the LEO wants to know whether or not your are armed, absent any criminal activity on your part, force the LEO to conduct a Terry Search.

If you are being detained for a traffic law violation, your firearm is not relevant to the infraction. Again, if the LEO wants to know whether or not your are armed, force the LEO to conduct a Terry Search.

The LEO will have to justify a Terry Search conducted during a traffic stop for speeding.

Start your recording devices and keep on, keeping on.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
Terry Search

Just my take,,

By forcing a "Terry Search" you are forcing the officer to give RAS....pretty simple.

Now....I think I said this before...but.. never and I mean never ask this question, "Am I being detained?"

It is an open ended question and the officer can say anything he wants....the correct question is " WHY am I being detained?"

I hope you see the subtle difference, but it means the world!!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I do not think anyone wants a Terry Search because a Terry Search requires the LEO to suspect you of criminal activity. If you are not engaged in criminal activity then a Terry Search would be a illegal seizure and search by the LEO. The LEO must take this into consideration. Again, the officer is the one that must articulate what he thought justified a Terry Search, to a judge, after the fact.

This is why LEOs may try to get you to voluntarily comply with his 'request(s)' during a 'consensual contact' for ID or to answer the question regarding whether or not you are armed. The LEO can not be accused of a illegal seizure and search if you agree to his request. So, knowing the law, acting lawfully, helps you and forces the LEO to detain you and do the Terry Search knowing that he may not be able to justify his actions.

The vast majority of LEOs are professional and knowledgeable regarding the law. They are pretty quick to assess a citizen in any given situation and usually take a course of action that respects the citizen's rights, to the extent possible given the situation, while performing his duties within the confines of the law. I do not think the average LEO wants to be referred to as a rights violating thug.

Again, only you can decide the lawful course of action to take while you are lawfully OCing. Acting lawfully does not always guarantee that you will not be contacted by LE, even illegally seized and searched. We can not know what the LEO knows or thinks he knows. We can only react to the LEOs actions within the confines of the law.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
This is why LEOs may try to get you to voluntarily comply with his 'request(s)' during a 'consensual contact' for ID or to answer the question regarding whether or not you are armed. The LEO can not be accused of a illegal seizure and search if you agree to his request. So, knowing the law, acting lawfully, helps you and forces the LEO to detain you and do the Terry Search knowing that he may not be able to justify his actions.

The vast majority of LEOs are professional and knowledgeable regarding the law. .

May try to get you?....it is their job....Officers have to "justify" every stop, why do you think you see them near the station everyday parked in some off the way place before the end of their shift filling out paper work?

The one thing that I hope everyone gets is that these officers are people too. They have families and with that they have problems just as we do. That said, they have bad days. The difference is they have a Badge, and with that so called authourity, they can make your life a living hell.

I know many LEO's...hell I get drunk with many of them, but don't think for one second if they can justify a stop, they will do so.

Hence, "Why are you detaining me?"

Leo's know the law?....sorry...laughable....They know what they can make up, to charge you...whether it sticks or not, they don't care...."justify"....then let the courts handle it!!

Quota met!
 
Last edited:

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
+1

I personally know one officer that was let go in Rolla, for refusing to pull people over for a tailight being out. He was fired....he is now a Lt in the Maryland Heights Police Department.

Common sense goes along way.
 
Last edited:

fastbreakr

New member
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
1
Location
North Kansas City
Duty to inform

I was looking through the laws because I was curious myself, and it says you must provide your CCW permit when asked.

"Duty to carry and display endorsement, penalty for violation:

571.121. 1. Any person issued a concealed carry endorsement pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall carry the concealed carry endorsement at all times the person is carrying a concealed firearm and shall display the concealed carry endorsement upon the request of any peace officer. Failure to comply with this subsection shall not be a criminal offense but the concealed carry endorsement holder may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed thirty- five dollars."
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Most LEO act like they don't know the actual law. It's not a law that requires you to tell them IF you have a firearm. It's not a law to show them anything if you are not armed and you've left your permit at home. It's not a law you have to tell them where the firearm (if any) is located.

It's only a law with a minor penalty to show them the permit if they ask and if you are armed.

Yet ask several different LEOs and you'll get 10 different answers. (I've done that at a gun show).

If I'm not driving do I have to show you a permit if asked and we're pulled over for a broken tail light? Yes, no, maybe, probably, depends.

Most will say (in a non-declare state) that if you have a traffic stop you have to tell them if you have a firearm and show them the permit along with the driver's license. That's not true. They have to ask to see your permit and that's ALL. (read your local laws to be sure).

If they like they can arrest you for loitering, resisting, or any number of things. You take the ride.
 
Top