Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Is OC allowed where CC is banned on private property in MO?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Penna
    Posts
    32

    Is OC allowed where CC is banned on private property in MO?

    I was in KC MO from 7-25 through 7-31 and stayed in the Marriott Courtyard Suites. One morning I saw a youngish man OCing in the breakfast line. I was with a group and could not break away to introduce myself and find out if he was LE or not. Days later, I spotted a notice on the front doors of the hotel that "concealed" firearms were banned per MO law. I just wondered if the fella I saw had found a way to carry while staying within the law. The sign did not say that firearms were banned, just the concealed ones. Pretty crafty if that is what he was doing. Don't tell the antis about the "loophole" if my suspicion is right.

  2. #2
    Regular Member freak4cycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    St Charles
    Posts
    46

    Thats a good question

    I am not sure on this topic, but I would also like to know. I am new to OC but have a CC permit. I CC carry everywhere! If you have a sign it makes no difference to me what so ever. All you can do if you find out I have a firearm is ask me to leave. If I comply with your request its over. If I don’t leave then you can get me for trespassing.. These signs are ridiculous! I am sure I am not the only person that would rather have the gun when needed then say Wait a minute let me go to my car and get my gun, you stay right there and then Ill come back and shoot you..

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    7
    I'm looking at moving to the Moscow Mills area, and would be very interested in seeing some information about this as well. Where I am now, OC is not uncommon at all. In fact, I haven't CC'd in years.

  4. #4
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by bill gray View Post
    I was in KC MO from 7-25 through 7-31 and stayed in the Marriott Courtyard Suites. One morning I saw a youngish man OCing in the breakfast line. I was with a group and could not break away to introduce myself and find out if he was LE or not. Days later, I spotted a notice on the front doors of the hotel that "concealed" firearms were banned per MO law. I just wondered if the fella I saw had found a way to carry while staying within the law. The sign did not say that firearms were banned, just the concealed ones. Pretty crafty if that is what he was doing. Don't tell the antis about the "loophole" if my suspicion is right.
    It's not really a matter of "staying within the law". Missouri is an "open carry state" and the practice is legal anywhere (with a few exceptions) in the state unless it is restricted or prohibited by a local ordinance in the specific jurisdiction you happen to be in at the moment. A sign posted on the door of a privately owned establishment, regardless of what it says, does not write/enact new law, so it therefore has no force of law. And it's not a "loophole", it's just the way the statutory process works.

    So as to the rest of the points in your question - Carrying of concealed firearms into a hotel is not "banned" under any state law, provided you have a valid concealed carry permit. If you don't have a valid concealed carry permit, then the carrying of concealed firearms is prohibited EVERYWHERE, save for the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, or on property over which you own, lease, or control, or when you are engaged in the lawful pursuit of game (hunting) and also possess an exposed firearm or projectile weapon.

    As to the sign, as I mentioned above, a "no firearms allowed" sign has no force of law in Missouri, whether it specifically mentions concealed firearms, or just firearms in general. It would be no different than if the hotel had a "no green shirts allowed" sign on the door. To walk past with a green shirt on would not be a violation of any law, but rather, it would be a disregard for the owners wishes. The owner is well within his/her rights to ask you to leave for any reason, whether they have signs posted or not, so the sign doesn't provide them with any "rights" they don't already have.

    As a matter of opinion, I believe common sense would dictate that if a business has a "no concealed weapons allowed" sign posted on the door, then it is their wish that you NOT bring in a weapon - period. Pushing that envelope with a technicality, ie: openly carrying the gun because the sign only mentions "concealed firearms", only serves to circumvent the property owner's wishes. The next step the property owner is likely to take is a sign that says "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED", so as to cover ANY carry mode.
    Last edited by cshoff; 08-06-2012 at 12:55 PM.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    As a matter of opinion, I believe common sense would dictate that if a business has a "no concealed weapons allowed" sign posted on the door, then it is their wish that you NOT bring in a weapon - period. Pushing that envelope with a technicality, ie: openly carrying the gun because the sign only mentions "concealed firearms", only serves to circumvent the property owner's wishes. The next step the property owner is likely to take is a sign that says "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED", so as to cover ANY carry mode.
    Another matter of OPINION, when you sign the contract with a hotel, you have leased the room and the "no firearms' no longer applies. This might not apply to the common areas etc, but there is no way it covers the room itself which I HAVE seen tried to be restricted. It is indeed a temporary domicile which you have leased.

    It does not mean you can not be ejected for another rule violation, but that one has no staying power.
    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."

  6. #6
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Another matter of OPINION, when you sign the contract with a hotel, you have leased the room and the "no firearms' no longer applies. This might not apply to the common areas etc, but there is no way it covers the room itself which I HAVE seen tried to be restricted. It is indeed a temporary domicile which you have leased.

    It does not mean you can not be ejected for another rule violation, but that one has no staying power.
    I would agree, as far as a hotel room is concerned, though any business could have signs posted at the door. As for me, when I see the "no guns" sign at the door, I head down the street to the next hotel so as not to spend my money with a business who is hostile towards my right to self protection.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Another matter of OPINION, when you sign the contract with a hotel, you have leased the room and the "no firearms' no longer applies. This might not apply to the common areas etc, but there is no way it covers the room itself which I HAVE seen tried to be restricted. It is indeed a temporary domicile which you have leased.

    It does not mean you can not be ejected for another rule violation, but that one has no staying power.


    Most hotels that take the time to hang a "No Firearms" sign in the front window will take the time to have a restricted firearms rule in their contract. By violating the contract, you are making it void that you are the temporary resident of that domicile. Best bet is to take your money to a place that respects your rights.
    I, as a law enforcement officer, fully support Open Carrying.


    The comments contained herein and above are solely made by QilvinLEO and are his personal opinion. They do not reflect the views of his department or his jurisdiciton. You will never get him to discuss a current case that is under investigation nor will he comment on any event that has happened in his jurisdiction. Furthermore, You will never know where he works.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Unincorperated Platte Co.
    Posts
    7
    I think the purpose of the sign on the hotel door was more a friendly advisory to out of town visitors that it carrying a concealed weapon (without a permit) is illegal in Missouri. Nothing more, nothing less.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by QilvinLEO View Post
    Most hotels that take the time to hang a "No Firearms" sign in the front window will take the time to have a restricted firearms rule in their contract. By violating the contract, you are making it void that you are the temporary resident of that domicile. Best bet is to take your money to a place that respects your rights.
    INAL however, I do not agree with your theory regarding the contract at any level and will be more than happy to be called wrong if you can cite a case where as much has been found by a court.

    There are a LOT of court cases out there and a hotel contract does not alter ones rights.

    At BEST the hotel could ask you to leave, something they can do for a whole host of reasons. If a hotel has a no concealed weapons sign, OC is not a good option as it is more than likely they WILL ask you to leave or more likely will call the police and as them to tell you to leave because they asked at the door.

    Many who do not travel a lot would not belive the problems traveling and trying not to give the gun busters any coin. Marriot, Hilton and their sub hotels all are anti-gun. Folks that is a lot of places, Fairfield, Hampton, Courtyard, Residence, and the list goes on and on.
    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."

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    U.S. Supreme Court

    STONER v. CALIFORNIA, 376 U.S. 483 (1964)
    376 U.S. 483
    STONER v. CALIFORNIA.
    CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
    DISTRICT. No. 209.
    Argued February 25, 1964.
    Decided March 23, 1964.
    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."

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Stoner v. California

    So, the state may not search your room without your consent unless they are arresting you in the hotel. That's comforting to know. OC and a uneducated nitwit cop unlawfully arrests you in the hotel then ransacks your room.

    Look at it this way, letting the judge work it out later means that you may get a big fat check from the tax payer. And the nitwit cop will get a sternly written sticky note affixed to his personnel file.
    "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

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Stoner v. California

    So, the state may not search your room without your consent unless they are arresting you in the hotel. That's comforting to know. OC and a uneducated nitwit cop unlawfully arrests you in the hotel then ransacks your room.

    Look at it this way, letting the judge work it out later means that you may get a big fat check from the tax payer. And the nitwit cop will get a sternly written sticky note affixed to his personnel file.
    I just like the petitioner's name, makes me want to chuckle a little... Good for him... and all of us!
    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    "The problem with Internet quotes is that no one has verified the source" -- Abraham Lincoln

Posting Permissions

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