Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: OC on your land

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640

    OC on your land

    Excuse my ignorance, but does a city restricting OC apply to your private property?
    Example, Florrisant has a ordinance that one cannot posses a firearm when intoxicated. (talking oc, not CC preempted)

    Is that enforceable while sitting outside on your deck lets say?

    If not, can someone point me to the appropriate law that states otherwise?
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    I'm strictly guessing, but if they were to come on your property and you were violating this ordinance, I bet they could arrest you.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    Well I will take a stab at this one see what you think. This is merely my thoughts and not to be taken as legal advise.

    Ok, private property is just that private. Thus in turn Public property is just that public.

    There are things you can do on your private property that you cannot on public property.

    If you are on your own private property or someone else that you have permission to be then you should be fine open carrying.

    Anyone that open carry’s should know that and be of the mind that people can and do make MWAG calls. If you are going to put yourself in a position, you should most likely keep yourself in a state of mind that you can think rationally—I will leave the decision to wither you can act and think rationally in an intoxicated state up to you……………but remember if you have to go to trial it’s not what you think it’s what the average person would believe and think in the same situation…………………….have you ever been in a jury? Did you believe the person sitting there in the jump suit & handcuffs was innocent until proven guilty?

    Also I will throw in there that I personally believe that because I decide to have a couple beers it does NOT relieve someone of their right to self defense.

    But, the minute you step into/onto public property you could then be in effect stepping into a NO OPEN CARRY area.

    Now carrying while intoxicated is a whole different subject and would bring a whole new set of things into play.--------IF you want to read up on a good thread on that ----------do a search on “exercise in stupidity”

    As for being enforceable!!! ANYTHING is enforceable in the affect that they can take you to JAIL. IF their charges will hold up in court is a whole different question in and of itself. (you may beat the rap but, you can’t beat the ride) I am sure someone will correct me but, I personally believe that police are there to enforce the laws the best that they understand them…………………this in turn means that police do not know the law that’s why we have court to sort all that legal mumbo jumbo out……………and decide if you were actually doing something illegal……………………..police just get you your day in court.
    Not to mention that there are many area’s that have ordinances still on the books that are not even legally enforceable.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  4. #4
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    kylemoul,

    I bumped the exercise in stupidity thread for ya. If you read through that i think it should answer some of your questions if not all of them.

    Many more people have commented in there on what i see the same questions you are asking that are more knowledgeable than myself.

    Hope that helps!
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    I am looking how the city of Florrisant to be specific, can enforce their city ordidance on your private property, and looking at the legallity of it.

    Can one not sit outside and have 1 beer? 2 beers? 6 beers? on my front porch in Florrisant? Would that give them RAS to give me a sobriety test on my private property then try to arrest me for violating the ordinance?

    I carry all the time, even when I drink. For personal preferences i do not OC in public while drinking, but I will at my brothers house or familys house, of that matter.
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  6. #6
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    I too live in Florissant, but that aside I fail to see how they could enforce there city ordinance on my private property.

    Can they tell me I am not allowed to wear a blue shirt on Wednesdays too?

    Once I step out on the sidewalk in front of my house on an easement where the property becomes public mabe..........but while i am in my garage with the door open or in my driveway ..............no way. They might arrest me but, I would be seeking a lawsuit as well if that were to happen.

    A sobriety test for what sitting in front of your house on the porch having a beer? Merly having a beer does not meet the requirements

    571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
    .
    .
    .
    (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;



    So as you can see, and as was pointed out above, there are now three criteria that must be present before an unlawful use of weapons charge can be present under this statute. You must:

    A) Actually be in possession of a firearm;
    B) Actually be intoxicated, which is defined as "a substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body"; and
    C) You must actually use the firearm in a negligent or unlawful manner, or actually discharge it.

    Not to mention I guess i fail to understand in this scenario how the police would even be speaking to you?

    What would give them the RAS you speak of?
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  7. #7
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    I joined this site for just this topic! I had a lot of bad information much of which i got from my CCW class. never the less I have learned what the actual law says. And it is ever changing.

    Just knowing the law is not enough if you get an officer that comes to you house under the belief that what you are doing is illegal and he wants to arrest you he can and HE WILL. Just because your right doesnt mean your not going to jail.

    The belief that he will allow you to show him the correct information..............seems a bit far fetched especially when his goal is to get your gun and take you to jail. If you get a sensable officer that is willing to listen to reason then your lucky.If you got 6 cops standing around he dont want to be made a fool of in front of his fellow officers, its easier to just take you to court and let the judge or jury sort it out.

    If in the circumstance you state you would happen to be intoxicated how much trust is the officer going to put in the word of an intoxicated person?---just some food for thought


    Fighting it though the court system is the only way to change their minds and even that doesn't work all the time.................you want things to change you have to take money from their department..............BIG money................money enough to make HEADS ROLL. ----and that is not and easy task my friend.

    I have friends that are police officers and i have been told even if they could not get you for what they came for.

    There is always something they could try to get you for.................and once you go to jail its out of their hands...............they have made their quota........they have said to me that they are going home at night and the guy in jail is the one fighting for their rights & freedoms.-----It may not be right but, its the way it happens.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Not too ;likely you are going to find a prosecutor willing to put themselves at risk going after you for OC on your own property. This is a HUGE misunderstanding some of the morons at the muni level seem to have, they THINK they can regulate it, but they can't, it is YOUR property.

    Case law exist and I believe this one even involves the PRIL where the cops gang tackled a guy OC while doing yard work, needless to say, they wound up with egg on their face.

    OC on your own property is NOT illegal therefore they would have no reason to enter YOUR property unless you gave them consent to do so, it is really just that simple.

    beyond that, ask your own lawyer.
    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."

  9. #9
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Not too ;likely you are going to find a............
    LMTD,

    Good I was hoping I would see you jump in on this you were one of the more knowledgeable I was referring to..........you and schoff are pretty knowldegeable along with many others...........I am still up in the are about the NOT Too comment I am assuming you mean not true and is only a typo which happens but, what part are you calling NOT TRUE?
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by mechanicworkman View Post
    LMTD,

    Good I was hoping I would see you jump in on this you were one of the more knowledgeable I was referring to..........you and schoff are pretty knowldegeable along with many others...........I am still up in the are about the NOT Too comment I am assuming you mean not true and is only a typo which happens but, what part are you calling NOT TRUE?
    Not sure what your question is sir.

    My point, you have always been able to carry as you see fit on your own property. I believe I said "NOT illegal" meaning legal, not sure again what you are asking.

    It does NOT mean the cops won't come after you, it does mean there is case law on the books surrounding the issue that make it unlikely you will be charged and face court, and makes it even more likely you will indeed walk and potentially have a civil action against the arresting officers.

    Never forget, much of what surrounds firearms is a DEFENSE in court, it does not make it something one will not be harassed about or even have to visit court.
    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 mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Not sure what your question is sir.

    My point, you have always been able to carry as you see fit on your own property. I believe I said "NOT illegal" meaning legal, not sure again what you are asking.

    It does NOT mean the cops won't come after you, it does mean there is case law on the books surrounding the issue that make it unlikely you will be charged and face court, and makes it even more likely you will indeed walk and potentially have a civil action against the arresting officers.

    Never forget, much of what surrounds firearms is a DEFENSE in court, it does not make it something one will not be harassed about or even have to visit court.
    Even in anti-2A/OC Wildwood their codes specifically give you OC rights on your own property.
    I can't see it being an issue anywhere in MO. Then again I'm not a lawyer either...........
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by mechanicworkman View Post
    I too live in Florissant, but that aside I fail to see how they could enforce there city ordinance on my private property.

    Can they tell me I am not allowed to wear a blue shirt on Wednesdays too?

    Once I step out on the sidewalk in front of my house on an easement where the property becomes public mabe..........but while i am in my garage with the door open or in my driveway ..............no way. They might arrest me but, I would be seeking a lawsuit as well if that were to happen.

    A sobriety test for what sitting in front of your house on the porch having a beer? Merly having a beer does not meet the requirements

    571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
    .
    .
    .
    (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;



    So as you can see, and as was pointed out above, there are now three criteria that must be present before an unlawful use of weapons charge can be present under this statute. You must:

    A) Actually be in possession of a firearm;
    B) Actually be intoxicated, which is defined as "a substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body"; and
    C) You must actually use the firearm in a negligent or unlawful manner, or actually discharge it.

    Not to mention I guess i fail to understand in this scenario how the police would even be speaking to you?

    What would give them the RAS you speak of?
    You are quoting state law. Florrisant has an ordinance stating it is violation to have a weapon while intoxicated. state has preempted that referring to CC, but since the city can regulate Oc, that would still apply. I am thinking along the lines of how they can enforce city ordinances of high grass, junk in your yard, etc...
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  13. #13
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    You are quoting state law. Florrisant has an ordinance stating it is violation to have a weapon while intoxicated. state has preempted that referring to CC, but since the city can regulate Oc, that would still apply. I am thinking along the lines of how they can enforce city ordinances of high grass, junk in your yard, etc...
    I was under the impression OC was legal in Florrisant, wrong?
    I know some one I'll be mad as a hornet at if it is not! I went to lunch Ocing in Florrisant with a fellow OCer from up there.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    I was under the impression OC was legal in Florrisant, wrong?
    I know some one I'll be mad as a hornet at if it is not! I went to lunch Ocing in Florrisant with a fellow OCer from up there.
    It is allowed as long as you have a CCW permit. They have a separate, specific ordinance about having a firearm while intoxicated, which is what this topic is kind of directed at. Sorry if I confused ya.
    Their ordinances are on municode or sulliven.
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  15. #15
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    It is allowed as long as you have a CCW permit. They have a separate, specific ordinance about having a firearm while intoxicated, which is what this topic is kind of directed at. Sorry if I confused ya.
    Their ordinances are on municode or sulliven.
    Thanks for making that clear, I was about to drive up there and turn myself in for my infraction. Fortunatley I do have one of the CCW things. I can now sleep with a clear head!
    Sorry, some OC/CCW humor!
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    I am looking how the city of Florrisant to be specific, can enforce their city ordidance on your private property, and looking at the legallity of it.

    Can one not sit outside and have 1 beer? 2 beers? 6 beers? on my front porch in Florrisant? Would that give them RAS to give me a sobriety test on my private property then try to arrest me for violating the ordinance?

    I carry all the time, even when I drink. For personal preferences i do not OC in public while drinking, but I will at my brothers house or familys house, of that matter.
    Kyle, I think one of the first places that I would start is whether or not an open container law is able to be enforced on your front porch. Working at a college in Springfield I can tell you that SPD and Greene County Sheriff's Dep't have both warned the college that if students are witnessed on the porches of buildings easily visible from the city street that they will approach, they will ask for ID, and they will write tickets for everything they can (looking for MIP's more than anything it seems). They've even been documented as using it as probable cause to enter the interior portion of the courtyards of the complexes. (not the buildings themselves, the green spaces between them hidden from the street) The same goes for our parking lots.

    So I'd start there and see where it goes. The next issue is whether or not Florissant PD will define the word "handles" as "physical or mechanical transport" when it comes to intoxication and the possession of a firearm. If they do, then carrying your firearm with an open container is very ill advised.

    There is ABSOLUTELY NO measurable standard documented ANYWHERE in Missouri law in regards to intoxication in relation to a firearm. None, zip, zero, nada, it's non-existant! The intoxication standard is "visible intoxication" and IS NOT measurable in any form what so ever. It actually varies from one law enforcement officer to the next as well as department to department. I've asked several people to point me to a scientifically measurable standard in Missouri law for this issue and none can point the way, it always reverts to "visible intoxication". This means you have absolutely ZERO defense against it in court unless you pay for a BAC at the hospital and even then without a documented scientifically measurable standard written into law it's possibly a moot point that could lead to a conviction. It's exactly the kind of problem that existed with DUI/DWI before the measurable standards were required. Double-edged sword on this: If you get nailed for visible intoxication with a firearm then you'll set case precedence by fighting it, it might be positive if you win. The downside is that it could force measurable standards state-wide and encourage LEOs to take things a step farther than they already do. (thinking STL and KC areas)

    On the other side of that coin, on your own property if you're not doing anything irresponsible it should not matter. Present a danger to yourself or others and then we have a problem. I'll revert to my usual on this: alcohol and firearms do not mix, have an alternative plan in place.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 09-23-2012 at 09:05 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Definitions. 571.010. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall mean:

    (11) "Intoxicated", substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body;
    We do not get to define what "substantially" is. Unless there is a town that prohibits self-defense under RSMo 563.031 while intoxicated.

    Typical wording of a town code regarding unlawful use of weapon while intoxicated.
    Subparagraphs (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of Subsection (A) of this Section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to Section 563.031, RSMo. (5. Possesses a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated;)
    What is not in the local code is a exemption (shall not apply statement.....which is not a affirmative defense statement, they are different) for RSMo 563.041.

    Anyway, any cop that tries to gig ya for drinking a brewski on your front porch while visibly armed is gunna have a very very very hard row to hoe. I am not sure any cop in this state is that dumb, even in those exceptionally anti-liberty/anti-citizen local PDs.

    I don't worry about what anyone thinks while I am on my property.....especially what cops think.
    "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

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    We do not get to define what "substantially" is. Unless there is a town that prohibits self-defense under RSMo 563.031 while intoxicated.

    Typical wording of a town code regarding unlawful use of weapon while intoxicated.

    What is not in the local code is a exemption (shall not apply statement.....which is not a affirmative defense statement, they are different) for RSMo 563.041.

    Anyway, any cop that tries to gig ya for drinking a brewski on your front porch while visibly armed is gunna have a very very very hard row to hoe. I am not sure any cop in this state is that dumb, even in those exceptionally anti-liberty/anti-citizen local PDs.

    I don't worry about what anyone thinks while I am on my property.....especially what cops think.

    Florrisant has no exclusion for their intoxication subdivision of their Weapons Offense code. i am not worried about what anyone thinks, just about the legality of it. of all of your guys opinions.
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Platte City, MO
    Posts
    25
    I don't understand why someone living in the city limits would think that they're private property somehow translates to being a soverign nation, that city code doesn't apply to you. And second, guns and alcohol. Yes. Great idea.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by VinnAY View Post
    I don't understand why someone living in the city limits would think that they're private property somehow translates to being a soverign nation, that city code doesn't apply to you. And second, guns and alcohol. Yes. Great idea.
    Guns and alcohol are fine. If you cannot be responsible then by all means either drink or leave your gun at home. it is not the guns fault for you not acting correctly. nobody but you knows your limits and it is your responsibility. just because i am drinking a few beers or 10 beers does not mean for 1 second i will not be prepared. there are laws that exempt you from discharging a firearm while intoxicated for that exact reason.

    You dont understand why? Well we would like your input. You just go completely on the defensive but bring no facts to the table. Please share. That is the whole reason for this topic.
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by VinnAY View Post
    I don't understand why someone living in the city limits would think that they're private property somehow translates to being a soverign nation, that city code doesn't apply to you. And second, guns and alcohol. Yes. Great idea.
    That would be because it doesn't. See how easy that was?
    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."

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by VinnAY View Post
    I don't understand why someone living in the city limits would think that they're private property somehow translates to being a soverign nation, that city code doesn't apply to you. And second, guns and alcohol. Yes. Great idea.
    Tangentially to you point. The statute RSMo 571 defines what intoxicated is under the law.....sort of. RSMo 571 also defines what is the (what qualifies as) unlawful use of a weapon while intoxicated. The words substantially, negligent, and unlawful have specific legal meanings.

    As I stated, a local LEA would have a very very very hard row to hoe if they attempt to gig you for popping a cool frosty friendly while on your own front porch. Considering that it is a defense against prosecution while tanked when you lawfully defend yourself or another per RSMo 563 being intoxicated and not meeting the definition of intoxicated per RSMo571 nor handling your fire arm as described in RSMo 571, essentially means that downing a brewski is not illegal on your own property.....unless of course you is passed out on your front lawn. Which, by the way, means that you can not be charged with a unlawful use of weapon cuz you is passed out and not capable of using anything other than air.
    "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

Posting Permissions

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