Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Interest in open carry demonstration in Springfield MO?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    82

    Interest in open carry demonstration in Springfield MO?

    I am proposing an open carry vigil here in Springfield complete with video, stills, and a press release.

    I think pointing out the insanity of government disarming people so that they can be slaughtered
    is the most honorable thing that could be done for the families and victims.

    A board member in Aurora CO is considering a protest there:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...18#post1793218



    Send him your encouragement, and if you can not be there hold your own protest locally.
    Document what you do the alternative media will be very interested.
    Last edited by tittiger; 07-23-2012 at 12:09 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    A couple of important suggestions before proceeding farther.

    Get a lawyer and have them on retainer before hand.
    Understand the RMSO involving the promotion of civil disorder and know that such a demonstration could fall under that statute.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5740000070.HTM

    Understand the refusal to disperse statute.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5740000060.HTM

    Obtain any and all permits that might be needed.
    Involve/engage local law enforcement on the matter and keep them in the loop.
    Make 100% sure you have people who will remain calm and professional at this, the whackos will get everyone arrested.
    Involve/engage the media cautiously.
    Have dedicated videographers on-hand. (remember this is a two way street, it can condemn as fast as it exhonnerates)

    Cautiously select a location that will give you excellent exposure while not creating a ruckus or making it easy for LE to charge you with a crime or some sort of municipal violation.

    Engage the CCW crowd on this as well. It impacts everyone, make it a "team" effort.
    It might be more important to touch on the vigil side of things rather than using it as a political springboard.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 07-23-2012 at 12:25 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    82
    I agree with you on everything other than the permit.

    A free person in a free country does not ask for permission to speak,
    on public property. If you do so you are asking for escalating tyranny.


    "Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." ~ Frederic Douglass


    Again I suggest not getting a permit except in a circumstance where say you want to shut down a street. Normal legal first
    amendment behavior does not require permission.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Just one town's little view on public gatherings.
    SECTION 210.225: UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY: A person commits the offense of unlawful assembly if he/she knowingly assembles with six (6) or more other persons and agrees with such persons to violate any of the criminal laws of this State or of the United States with force or violence.

    SECTION 210.228: OBSTRUCTING PUBLIC PLACES:

    A. Definition. The following term shall be defined as follows:

    PUBLIC PLACE: Any place to which the general public has access and a right of resort for business, entertainment or other lawful purpose, but does not necessarily mean a place devoted solely to the uses of the public. It shall also include the front or immediate area of any store, shop, restaurant, tavern or other place of business and also public grounds, areas or parks.

    B. It shall be unlawful for any person to stand or remain idle either alone or in consort with others in a public place in such manner so as to:

    1. Obstruct any public street, public highway, public sidewalk or any other public place or building by hindering or impeding or tending to hinder or impede the free and uninterrupted passage of vehicles, traffic or pedestrians;

    2. Commit in or upon any public street, public highway, public sidewalk or any other public place or building any act or thing which is an obstruction or interference to the free and uninterrupted use of property or with any business lawfully conducted by anyone in or upon or facing or fronting on any such public street, public highway, public sidewalk, or any other public place or building, all of which prevents the free and uninterrupted ingress, egress and regress, therein, thereon and thereto;

    3. Obstruct the entrance to any business establishment, without so doing for some lawful purpose, if contrary to the expressed wish of the owner, lessee, managing agent or person in control or charge of the building or premises.

    C. When any person causes or commits any of the conditions in this Section, a Police Officer or any Law Enforcement Officer shall order that person to stop causing or committing such conditions and to move on or disperse. Any person who fails or refuses to obey such orders shall be guilty of a violation of this Section.

    http://z2codes.sullivanpublications....=wentzvilleset
    Some political subdivision may have ordinances that limit the size of any gathering of citizens in public. Know the law and abide by the law.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    82
    There is a huge difference between legal, and lawful, and no matter how many scum bags meet in a capital to make something the law, does not make it so.
    This law you provide violates a slew of God given inalienable rights.

    You are basically saying we have no right of free speech when a bunch of psychopaths meet in a room and vote to take if from us.
    The Declaration says:

    ".....That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,.........

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security...."

    I think it is way past time to throw off any government that would write a piece of treasonous garbage such as what you showed me.

    Is it any wonder we are where we are at, when everyone goes along with a tyrannical government outlawing free speech by requiring a permit?
    A permit means by definition that you have no such right!


    "A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law." ~ Justice John Marshall
    (1755-1835) US Supreme Court Chief Justice


    There are really no effective checks, and balances when government becomes tyrannical. That is the illusion that keeps the masses placated.
    There are virtually no effective, and accessible means for your average citizen to address the crimes committed by the psychopaths that euphemistically call themselves government. Could you dsign a more blatant display of tyranny than this supposed law?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by tittiger View Post
    There is a huge difference between legal, and lawful, and no matter how many scum bags meet in a capital to make something the law, does not make it so.
    This law you provide violates a slew of God given inalienable rights.
    Uh... yes it does .

    Quote Originally Posted by tittiger View Post
    You are basically saying we have no right of free speech when a bunch of psychopaths meet in a room and vote to take if from us.
    I think it is way past time to throw off any government that would write a piece of treasonous garbage such as what you showed me.

    Is it any wonder we are where we are at, when everyone goes along with a tyrannical government outlawing free speech by requiring a permit?
    A permit means by definition that you have no such right!
    So .... what do you suggest happen to ... " fix " the " problems " you speak of ?

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by tittiger View Post
    There is a huge difference between legal, and lawful, and no matter how many scum bags meet in a capital to make something the law, does not make it so.
    This law you provide violates a slew of God given inalienable rights.

    You are basically saying we have no right of free speech when a bunch of psychopaths meet in a room and vote to take if from us.
    The Declaration says:

    Could you dsign a more blatant display of tyranny than this supposed law?
    No, what is being said is simply to have legal representation availible as there are indeed laws that whether one agrees with them or not, can land you in jail without regard for what is JUST and that is the point, we have a LEGAL system, not a JUSTICE system and what you are proposing has some risk one should consider and prepare for in order to retain ones freedom.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / Rolla, MO
    Posts
    90
    I already feel this will go badly and end in arrests, you are wanting to KNOWINGLY violate the law as it is written, these posts prove it and can be used against you very easily if you really get into a bad situation. There is peaceable protest and there is what you are seeming to want to do, if you disagree with a law that stands in your way make it part of a LEGAL protest but don't violate it while representing lawful carry.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    You have failed to explain exactly what you would be demonstrating either for or against. That would be a good place to start.

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

  10. #10
    Regular Member Boba Fett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fair Grove, Missouri
    Posts
    206
    I'm going to have an open carry meet 'n greet (eat) on my birthday here in Springfield. Anyone's invited. Once I pick a restaurant I'll make a thread. My birthday's on August 2nd, a Thursday.
    I would have a 200x15 userbar here, but images are sadly not allowed in signatures.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •