• 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.

Another City prohibits open carry

M1A shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
21
Location
Excelsior Springs, Missouri
The other part of three

subsection 3 only points to the other codes that define what allows the prohibition of open carry...

"...which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070,..."

"...provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243."
 
Last edited:

M1A shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
21
Location
Excelsior Springs, Missouri
My Point

Ok, and your point is what?

Point being, three doesn't actually do the banning, it is the other sections that it points to. These are the items I'm trying to get the City Council to enumerate as to their recent decision to ban oc. What specifically did they use to enact this ordinance? They have so far, not responded. I'm trying to organize an empty holster protest at an upcoming council meeting to demand an answer to this question. I'm not trying to be argumentive, but it is clear that three points to other sections to allow the actual banning.
 
Last edited:

M1A shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
21
Location
Excelsior Springs, Missouri
email chain regarding EXSPSMO ban

here is my email chain regarding my contact with the city council and the Attorney Generals office.

Once again a non-answer.

[I]Mr.Schlotzhauer,

Is this reasonable? I cannot get the bottom of this. Is there any way the Office of the Attorney General can help? Or are the gun owners of Missouri once again held hostage by the legislature. I mean, 21.750.2 says cities, hands off, the legislature claims preemption but then 21.750.3 says ,hey, go a head and ban if you can.

Here is another thought for your office. This is a violation the second amendment by ruling against people that cannot afford the training classes required for concealed carry and the annual endorcement fees. This denies low income people the rightt to self defense and free exerecise of their second amendment rights as well as denying them the rights addressed by 21.750.2 Does this sound like a course to follow?

Thanks for all your help in this matter,

Dean Carder

--- On Thu, 10/4/12, xxxxxxx xxxxxxx <xxxxxxx@ci.excelsior-springs.mo.us> wrote:


From: xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx <xxxxxxx@ci.excelsior-springs.mo.us>
Subject: RE: City Council - Open Carry of Firearms
To: "Dean Carder" <deancarder@att.net>
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2012, 7:10 PM


Mr. Carder,



The City considers the provisions of its Municipal Code, Missouri Statutes and the decisions of Missouri courts in passing any ordinance. It is not possible to identify every specific subsection of a statute considered when passing this or any other ordinance. The City certainly considered the provisions of Sections 571.010 – 571.070 and 252.243 RSMO. along with many other factors when the City enacted the ordinance regulating the open carrying of firearms within the City limits.



xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

City of Excelsior Springs





From: Dean Carder [mailto:deancarder@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 9:53 AM
To: xxxxxx xxxxx
Subject: RE: City Council

I realize, as stated, in my email that 21.750 was used. I asked for the exact section, subsection and item. 21.750.3 states that to enact a prohibition the city government must conform exactly to to any of the items in 571.010 to 571.070 and 252.243. So again, what section, subsection and item was used to violate our state right. Please, do not think I will settle for an generic answer to this vital question.



As always,

Respectfully,



Dean Carder

--- On Wed, 10/3/12, xxxxxxx xxxxxxx <xxxxxxxxx@ci.excelsior-springs.mo.us> wrote:


From: Shannon Stroud <sstroud@ci.excelsior-springs.mo.us>
Subject: RE: City Council
To: "Dean Carder" <deancarder@att.net>
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 7:06 PM

Mr. Carder,



The Ordinance was passed pursuant to Section 21.750 RSMo. Copies of Missouri statutes may be found at http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/STATUTES.HTM.



xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

City Clerk

City of Excelsior Springs

201 E. Broadway

Excelsior Springs, MO 64024

816-630-0752

xxxxxxxxxx@ci.excelsior-springs.mo.us







From: Dean Carder [mailto:deancarder@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:43 PM
To: xxxxxx xxxxxx
Subject: City Council

I am requesting the city council provide me with the Missouri Statute the they used to effect the recent ban on open carry in this city. Please provide the section, subsection and item of any and all statutes that are being applied. I know that RSMo 21.750.3 say that cities can institute a ban only if they exactly meet requirements of other statutes.



"3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. "



You help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.



Respectfully,



Dean Carder
[/I]

 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
The answer, as I've stated before is through the courts or the legislature. "WE" here on this forum find the statute 21.750.3 unacceptable. Beating our heads against the wall won't change anything.
There are some of us who have taken the cause to both of above mentioned sources before and we are doing it again to reagain our rights. Debate a municipality if you like, it won't change their minds nor change the State Statute. Wait till after the November election, call, write, email +/or visit with your State Representative and State Senator. Let them know your view on OC and our rights. I have no doubt there will be OC legislation next year, your voice matters at the State level, the munis do what ever they want throughout the State on OC because they can, and after addressing many Municipal Governments on OC rights I've found they don't listen worth a hoot!
 

M1A shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
21
Location
Excelsior Springs, Missouri
The answer, as I've stated before is through the courts or the legislature. "WE" here on this forum find the statute 21.750.3 unacceptable. Beating our heads against the wall won't change anything.
There are some of us who have taken the cause to both of above mentioned sources before and we are doing it again to reagain our rights. Debate a municipality if you like, it won't change their minds nor change the State Statute. Wait till after the November election, call, write, email +/or visit with your State Representative and State Senator. Let them know your view on OC and our rights. I have no doubt there will be OC legislation next year, your voice matters at the State level, the munis do what ever they want throughout the State on OC because they can, and after addressing many Municipal Governments on OC rights I've found they don't listen worth a hoot!

Thanks for your input. So, I can go through the courts via 1. open carry until fined or arrested or my widow can if I'm shot in this encounter. Or bring my argument of denial of right to self defense to low income gun owners. Either way this costs the amount of money neither I nor anyone I know has. Or 2, seek redress through the state legislature. This was proven successful in the condealed carry movement. After about 25 years. I feel with enough support this situation can be remedied through petition of the City Council. However since, in our instance, the issue was not put on an agenda to be debated, we are looking at possible dismissal via the Sunshine law of Missouri. What do you think of this option?
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
Thanks for your input. So, I can go through the courts via 1. open carry until fined or arrested or my widow can if I'm shot in this encounter. Or bring my argument of denial of right to self defense to low income gun owners. Either way this costs the amount of money neither I nor anyone I know has. Or 2, seek redress through the state legislature. This was proven successful in the condealed carry movement. After about 25 years. I feel with enough support this situation can be remedied through petition of the City Council. However since, in our instance, the issue was not put on an agenda to be debated, we are looking at possible dismissal via the Sunshine law of Missouri. What do you think of this option?

I do not comment on the open forum what legislative or legislative actions may or may not be sought. As discussed in the past here we know then media and the anti-2A/OC folks watch this site (First hand information). There are options to what you posted, that's all I have to say here. If and when there are actions in progress (Public record) I and many others post them here, and that is good. When things happen in the public eye we need al the support we can get. Many people from here and other place generated a significant volume of letters, email and visits to Jefferson City last year. I hope when the time comes they will do it again, and I believe they will.
It would take an individual with significant $$$ to take OC rights to court, but there are options being actively explored and some inquiries being conducted.

I do not see any action being started tillafter January. The legislature is out till then (It will not be the first agenda of the day) and it is an election year........... Just hang out, support candidates who support us and be patient. There are those of us who remain active seeking to regain our rights 365 days a year, and we are not asleep at the switch.
 

M1A shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
21
Location
Excelsior Springs, Missouri
Thanks

Mspgunner, thanks for all your efforts. I do not mean to belittle anything the gun rights activist are doing. I ma mearly frustrated at a lackadaisical legislature who install such twisted, tortures words in to law. And I'm angry at a city coucil who institutes ordinances without any of the publics knowledge or comment.
Thanks for all you have done.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
Mspgunner, thanks for all your efforts. I do not mean to belittle anything the gun rights activist are doing. I ma mearly frustrated at a lackadaisical legislature who install such twisted, tortures words in to law. And I'm angry at a city coucil who institutes ordinances without any of the publics knowledge or comment.
Thanks for all you have done.

As far as the legislature goes, we have gained many friends there and the future does look better than ever before. With the entire House up for relection and half the Senate I hope we will see a growing 2A supportive legislature on both sides of the political spectrum. More people across the State are enlightened about 2A rights.

The City Council information is always available to the public and all votes are public as well, except those dealing with personnel matters which is protected by the State. The problem is "we" don't go and we don't participate. Apathy is norm of the day. I attend my City Council meetings, but not as often as I should. I have addressed the Wildwood City Council many times on everything from open carry to airsoft guns. some times I have been successful, some times not. One way to stay ahead of the curve is to ask "your" City Council person to contact you if anything releated to firearms, hunting or anything realated to these comes before the council. Speak in the public input sessions and committee hearings. It is a multi-step proceass many times.

Another way to stay on top is the many discussion forums. I have found many clues to up coming events and hearings on them and I and others go and speak out peice. One of those forums is:

http://www.missourisportshooting.org/

It is free, although you are encouraged to "join" the MSSA. It works some what like this forum and darn near everyone involved in shooting sports in Misosuri subscribes or is a member. Check it out.
 

pfries

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
182
Location
East Tennessee
3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070,
with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243

I understand what he is after, you bolded one part but most continue to read it to garner the plain meaning of the law. He wants to know what section of 252.243 they are citing thier authority under.
"provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243"

Hunting heritage protection areas designated, where--no TIF projects permitted, exceptions--discharge of firearms prohibited--areas not included.

252.243.
1. This section shall be known as and may be cited as the "Hunting Heritage Protection Areas Act". Hunting heritage protection areas shall
include all land located within the one hundred-year flood plain of the Missouri River and all land located within the one hundred-year flood plain of
the Mississippi River, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as amended from time to time.

2. In addition to the provisions of section 99.847, no new tax increment financing project shall be authorized in any hunting heritage protection area
after August 28, 2007. This subsection shall not apply to tax increment financing projects or districts approved:

(1) Prior to August 28, 2007, and shall allow the modification, amendment, or expansion of such projects including redevelopment project costs
by not more than forty percent of such project's original projected cost and the tax increment finance district by not more than five percent of the district as it existed as of August 28, 2007;

(2) For the purpose of flood or drainage protection and for any public infrastructure included therewith; or

(3) For the purpose of constructing or operating a renewable fuel facility as defined in section 348.430 or for the purpose of providing infrastructure
necessary solely for the construction or operation of such renewable fuel production facility, provided no residential, commercial, or industrial development
not directly associated with the production of renewable fuel shall occur within a hunting heritage protection area, either directly or indirectly, as a result of
such tax increment financing project.

3. The discharge of firearms for lawful hunting, sporting, target shooting, and all other lawful purposes shall not be prohibited in hunting heritage protection areas,
subject to all applicable state and federal laws, and local ordinances prohibiting hunting or the discharge of firearms adopted before August 28, 2007.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 1 of this section to the contrary, hunting heritage protection areas shall not include:

(1) Any area with a population of not less than fifty thousand persons that has been defined and designated in the 2000 United States Census as an
"urbanized area" by the United States Secretary of Commerce;

(2) Any land ever owned by an entity regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or any land ever used or operated by an entity regulated
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;

(3) Any land used for the operation of a physical port of commerce to include customs ports, but shall not include other land managed or governed by
a port authority if such other land extends beyond the actual physical port;

(4) Any land contained within the boundary of any home rule city with more than four hundred thousand inhabitants and located in more than one county,
or any land contained within a city not within a county; or

(5) Any land located within one-half mile of any interstate highway, as such highways exist as of August 28, 2007.
 

osmanobma

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Missouri
Because police chiefs have excessive influence on muni boards. Hence the response to "inquiries" comment from the police chief. The police chief association is a very active anti-gun org and outs money up on a regular basis to fight citizens having guns.

You should have seen the illegal dog and pony show the chesterfield mayor and police chief put on last year, it was pathetic, took over 20 minutes of the meeting while citizens got held to the three minute limit. Not to mention the doctored "evidence" they produced without allowing for alternative views, a couple of true PUNKS is what they are sir, punks. Does not change the fact that they had the power to do it, does not change the fact no one has the power to fight the gate keepers, but does make it clear that at the muni level, you pretty much can not trust the council person to do anything beyond retaining their own power regardless of the law.

That is how it came about, does not change just because it is on the other side of the state, it was just slower developing over there and depending upon a very few factors, it may indeed spread rapidly.

what happened in chesterfield? did they pass some anti 2A law?
 

peterarthur

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
613
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Sent a scathing email to the city council regarding violation of Constitution and state law and never patronizing any businesses there again while this law exists, and promised to pass the word...
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
open carry is legal in chesterfield, right?

Accoring to what I read OC is legal on "public Property" not on private property. This has to do with the age old hunting regulations. If you own "x" number of ac. you can "hunt" and carry a firearm in Chesterfield. They basically eliminated the ability to "hunt" or discharge a "weapon" in small lot areas, ie subdivisions. That included conventional firearms, blow guns, pellet rifles and bb guns, except at sanctioned events such as boy scouts....

I would encourage you to read their regulations yourself. Basically, don't OC in Chesterfield!
 

ViperGTS19801

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
27
Location
Montgomery County, PA
So the article is basically saying, "While open carry hasn't actually caused any dangerous situations in the past, the local police are tired of answering the phone and telling ignorant citizens that open carry is legal - so instead of doing their jobs, they're having legislation passed that turns an otherwise harmless activity into an illegal activity under the false guise of a safety concern."

Way to go.
 
Top