Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Visiting Branson, MO

  1. #1
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727

    Visiting Branson, MO

    My wife and I are visiting Branson this weekend. I am OCing my G17 in a comptac OTW holster but the jacket covers it. While in traffic, I saw two LEOs and happened to stop right next to them so I asked if OC was legal in Branson. The first cop shrugged his shoulders and said yeah no problem here buddy but the other LEO (who sounded like a little boy) immediately perked his ears and came over and said "open carry?, no we have a city ordinance against that". I said no problem just curious. I am aware cities can preempt state law but haven't researched Branson specifically.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    If I remember correctly, Branson either has an ordinance against it or is very hostile. In any event, it's not a good idea to go randomly OCing in any town in Missouri without checking first. That can land you in the local pokey quickly.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    I am OCing my G17 in a comptac OTW holster but the jacket covers it.

    So were you OCing or CCing?
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  4. #4
    Regular Member JEStucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Independence, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post

    So were you OCing or CCing?
    He was in his car, so under MO law he should have been fine regardless... however, since he's not a Missouri resident... that's a whole different kettle of fish
    Last edited by JEStucker; 12-21-2013 at 10:05 PM. Reason: noticed the OP wasn't a MO resident

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by JEStucker View Post
    He was in his car, so under MO law he should have been fine regardless... however, since he's not a Missouri resident... that's a whole different kettle of fish
    Umm, if you are over 21 and your firearm is less than 16 inches, and you can legally own it otherwise, it's perfectly legal to carry it however you like in Missouri, regardless if you are a resident or not.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Regular Member JEStucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Independence, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Umm, if you are over 21 and your firearm is less than 16 inches, and you can legally own it otherwise, it's perfectly legal to carry it however you like in Missouri, regardless if you are a resident or not.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Thank you for the clairification, much appreciated!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    IIRC, Branson is not friendly, at one time you could with a CCW, however I thought they changed it in the couple of years.

    Hope you enjoyed your stay.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    I don't understand why people either don't read or can't comprehend. I'm not wailkng around sporting a pistol without checking. I have an AR CCW permit so I am legal to cc my pistol which I am. I didn't know the specific law for Branson after a brief internet search. It's mostly irrelevant since it's winter and a jacket covers the pistol but I did ask two LeOs out of curiosity and found it interesting I received two different responses. Just throwing it out there.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    One cop likely won't remember you.....shrugged his shoulders. The other cop may remember you.....perked his ears.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Here is a link to Branson's municipal code pertaining to firearms:

    http://Library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=13699

    Within, I see no distinction between OC and CC. It merely mentions the carrying of concealed firearms, and states within the ordinance that a permit is required TO CARRY in accordance with MO law. Therefore, I see no specific example where lawfulness is attributed ONLY to CC, and not OC. (Or, more specifically in order to clarify: Branson's ordinance makes carrying a firearm illegal....but exempts CCW holders from illegality. It does not specifically state MODE OF CARRY.)

    The only part of Branson's ordinance that is questionable is the prohibition of "displaying in the presence of one or more people in an angry or threatening manner .

    I believe previous discussions have arrived at the meaning of, that in order to be determined illegal the "display", which could be construed as OC, must be done in an "angry or threatening manner" in order to fit the exact definition.

    I don't think this has been tested in court, but I imagine it wouldn't fly as far as any DA would want to throw it as it would require him/her to rewrite the definition of "angry and threatening manner" to include holstered firearms.

    I doubt the city would allow their officers to continue carrying their firearms in such an angry or threatening manner after that leap.

    As always, these ruminations on the law are merely my own speculation. I am not a lawyer, so OC at your own risk. However, in my amateur opinion, I see nothing in Branson's ordinance to make OC illegal.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Here is a link to Branson's municipal code pertaining to firearms:

    http://Library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=13699

    Within, I see no distinction between OC and CC. It merely mentions the carrying of concealed firearms, and states within the ordinance that a permit is required TO CARRY in accordance with MO law. Therefore, I see no specific example where lawfulness is attributed ONLY to CC, and not OC. (Or, more specifically in order to clarify: Branson's ordinance makes carrying a firearm illegal....but exempts CCW holders from illegality. It does not specifically state MODE OF CARRY.)

    The only part of Branson's ordinance that is questionable is the prohibition of "displaying in the presence of one or more people in an angry or threatening manner .

    I believe previous discussions have arrived at the meaning of, that in order to be determined illegal the "display", which could be construed as OC, must be done in an "angry or threatening manner" in order to fit the exact definition.

    I don't think this has been tested in court, but I imagine it wouldn't fly as far as any DA would want to throw it as it would require him/her to rewrite the definition of "angry and threatening manner" to include holstered firearms.

    I doubt the city would allow their officers to continue carrying their firearms in such an angry or threatening manner after that leap.

    As always, these ruminations on the law are merely my own speculation. I am not a lawyer, so OC at your own risk. However, in my amateur opinion, I see nothing in Branson's ordinance to make OC illegal.
    See 58-97(e)....it is still prohibited without a CCW.

    No person shall carry upon any street, highway, public thoroughfare, public lot or other lot or property open to the public a firearm or projectile weapon while such weapon or firearm is loaded with ammunition or projectiles or other devices or is so equipped or rigged in a manner which would allow such firearm or projectile weapon the capability of the discharge of such ammunition and/or projectiles, unless granted a concealed carry endorsement pursuant to RSMo 571.010—571.121.
    Basically, unless you have a CCW, you cannot carry, is how I read that. Please, if I read it wrong, suggest.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post



    Basically, unless you have a CCW, you cannot carry, is how I read that. Please, if I read it wrong, suggest.
    This is actually IMHO an extraordinary way to say it within the context of how Missouri laws work IMHO.

    INAL however some really GOOD lawyers have made it clear on more than one occasion how such things can be misunderstood.

    For example, if you have ever watched Kevin Jamison's cd's on the subject he constantly stresses the point that carrying a concealed weapon in the state of Missouri is 100% illegal and a carry permit is a DEFENSE for the violation of that law. I believe that to be an accurate assessment since if you were indeed found to be carrying concealed, produced the permit and it were reported to be invalid, you would indeed be charged for violating the concealed carry law. While some see it as splitting hairs, when folks refer to the permit making it "legal" which sounds like a technical point but actually it is based upon the Missouri standard of only listing ILLEGAL activities.

    The Branson code is written very much different from most others. They reference open carry as "in plain view" vs "openly carried" or other more common restrictions other munis use. Many would agree that it looks like Branson is ok with a CCW except in city owned property where all carry is restricted. I also have little doubt that it would indeed be a selectively enforced law if so as way way too may guns in gun racks passing through the area which indeed is open carry in the state of Missouri.

    IMHO the law is just vague enough to cause a person problems, I am not convinced that you would not get out of it if you have a CCW but I think it is possible that you could wind up with a summons to court over it and IMHO since it would not set precedence, it is not worth it. I also believe before they would bother too much with it they would plead it out aka you would only be out legal fees and pay a littering fine to be done with it which would be thousands less than fighting a charge even in muni court.

    opinions vary, that one is mine, you should give it just as much merit as you paid for it :P
    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."

  13. #13
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    This is actually IMHO an extraordinary way to say it within the context of how Missouri laws work IMHO.

    INAL however some really GOOD lawyers have made it clear on more than one occasion how such things can be misunderstood.

    For example, if you have ever watched Kevin Jamison's cd's on the subject he constantly stresses the point that carrying a concealed weapon in the state of Missouri is 100% illegal and a carry permit is a DEFENSE for the violation of that law. I believe that to be an accurate assessment since if you were indeed found to be carrying concealed, produced the permit and it were reported to be invalid, you would indeed be charged for violating the concealed carry law. While some see it as splitting hairs, when folks refer to the permit making it "legal" which sounds like a technical point but actually it is based upon the Missouri standard of only listing ILLEGAL activities.

    The Branson code is written very much different from most others. They reference open carry as "in plain view" vs "openly carried" or other more common restrictions other munis use. Many would agree that it looks like Branson is ok with a CCW except in city owned property where all carry is restricted. I also have little doubt that it would indeed be a selectively enforced law if so as way way too may guns in gun racks passing through the area which indeed is open carry in the state of Missouri.

    IMHO the law is just vague enough to cause a person problems, I am not convinced that you would not get out of it if you have a CCW but I think it is possible that you could wind up with a summons to court over it and IMHO since it would not set precedence, it is not worth it. I also believe before they would bother too much with it they would plead it out aka you would only be out legal fees and pay a littering fine to be done with it which would be thousands less than fighting a charge even in muni court.

    opinions vary, that one is mine, you should give it just as much merit as you paid for it :P
    Your comments about a CCW/CCP being a defense is interesting. It is a topic of discussion I've heard a several times; with no discernible conclusion. Not to say I thoroughly disagree with the theory, but the one point that has been brought to my attention, is a key phrase 'shall authorize'...then they go off into the legal historical definition of it...to finally come to the conclusion...it is prohibited unless the state grants it to you; but can be revoked based upon one's behavior.

    As you say, ANAL, and my comments are only worth what you paid for them. Enjoy!! :P
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    If concealed means concealed, is concealed on your own property unlawful? OC is not unlawful on your own property, or is it?

    The charge of carrying concealed is different that carrying openly on a CCW endorsement where that is the requirement. THAT, charge is the case that gets OC once again stated as the law of the state. I'll even wager that the state cannot exclude as many locations as they do now. No citizen can be barred from exercising his right in/on public property. The state can not exclude any private property (churches). I'll even go so far as to submit that 571.107 would be gutted, except for certain areas of cop shops.

    I await that brave soul to make that case.

    The problem with baby steps is that the anti-liberty crowd lumps all sorts of anti-liberty restrictions in with their restoring liberty laws.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Washington, MO
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    If concealed means concealed, is concealed on your own property unlawful? OC is not unlawful on your own property, or is it?

    The charge of carrying concealed is different that carrying openly on a CCW endorsement where that is the requirement. THAT, charge is the case that gets OC once again stated as the law of the state. I'll even wager that the state cannot exclude as many locations as they do now. No citizen can be barred from exercising his right in/on public property. The state can not exclude any private property (churches). I'll even go so far as to submit that 571.107 would be gutted, except for certain areas of cop shops.

    I await that brave soul to make that case.

    The problem with baby steps is that the anti-liberty crowd lumps all sorts of anti-liberty restrictions in with their restoring liberty laws.
    In my opinion, this would all be real easy if the law simply stated that in order for there to be any kind of prohibition on a citizen lawfully carrying a firearm, that person or place (public or private) has to, a) provide real physical security including armed police and metal detectors (I'm talking about the type you may see at a U.S. district court house; and not one "security guard" with a wand), and 2) provide secure storage for citizens to check their firearms while on the property prohibiting firearms.

    This seems like a no brainer to me. It wouldn't affect many of the so called "sensitive areas" like prisons, court houses, etc. because they already have security in place. They would just have to allow people to check their gun before proceeding past security. And it would reduce workplace and school shootings because one way or another, an active shooter would encounter an immediate armed resistance instead of a 5 minute turkey shoot before the police show up.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    I would not support any legislation that burdens a private property owner. If their "security" does not meet your requirements then shop elsewhere. You may find it very difficult to do business with a bricks & mortar establishment. Public property can attempt to tax us into "ensuring" security, or they could just react to criminal behavior and not infringe upon the citizenry and their rights.

    If regular folks saw lawfully armed regular folks hanging around public property not too many government drones, of the disgruntled variety, no matter how crazy, would go "postal" on their fellow government drones, at work anyway.

Posting Permissions

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