-
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.
-
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.
Three arrested for open carry of handguns at mall in Cape Girardeau
- Thread starter deepdiver
- Start date
There is Legisaltion Pending before The Missouri Legislature that would Fix This Problem, albeit that it would only Apply to Certain Persons who have Valid Concealed Carry Permits Issued under Missouri Law. The Bill is found here: http://www.moga.mo.gov/
Can you offer a more specific/direct link? That one looked like a maze.
There is some very convoluted wording there, but the following seems good:
OPEN CARRY ORDINANCES - Section 21.750
This act provides that the open carrying of a firearm may not be prohibited by a political subdivision for any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit in his or her possession who presents such endorsement or permit upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. In addition, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun may be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest or if there is no reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Any person who violates these provisions may be issued a citation for up to $35. No ordinance of a political subdivision may be construed to preclude the use of a firearm to defend property or persons.
Confused by the part bolded above - seems contradictory. Would makesense if the no were removed.
That and is an officer who "violates these provisions" by detaining someone unlawfully to be issued a citation?
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
it could well be they knew the ordinance but also knew it was not a true law as it was a clear violation of the Second Amendment
The answer I believe is no. Unless rights are stood up for they will be stolen. All states have gun regulations in place that are voided by the Constitution. And yet that's accepted. As a result rights that are unquestionable are violated daily.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
I found the below at the beginning of the section of Code containing the subject item:
Sec. 1-8. General penalty; continuing violations.permanent link to this piece of content
Whenever in this Code or in any ordinance or resolution of the city any act is prohibited or is made or declared to be unlawful or an offense, or whenever in such Code, ordinance or resolution the doing of any act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to be unlawful, where no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation of any such provision of this Code or any ordinance or resolution shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding three (3) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; provided, however, that violations of regulations relating to the parking of vehicles shall not constitute a misdemeanor. Each day any violation of any provision of this Code or of any such ordinance or resolution shall continue shall constitute a separate offense.
(Code 1967, § 1-8)
cirrusly
Regular Member
I can't recall which SCOTUS ruling stated this clarification, but I think it was either McDonald v Chicago or Heller v District of Columbia in which SCOTUS ruled "like any right it is not unlimited." This could be interpreted that some regulation around mode of carry could be constitutional. For instance, if OC is banned then CC should be legal, and vice versa.
It is quick to jump and claim a ban on OC is unconstitutional without fully considering the other mode of carry.
Do you contend constitutional carry states (Alaska, Vermont, etc) are violating our rights "daily" as well?
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
I do. Vermont for example
13-85 § 4016.
Title 13: Chpt. 85: § 4004.
Those are what I class an non-laws and the Second Amendment nullifies them. Of course if you ignore these 'laws' you'll have more freedom stolen in the form of arrest and further penalties if you refuse to pay fine money you don't actually owe in the first place.
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
Thats opinion though. Yes whether to OC or CC is a hot topic with strong opinions but Constitution wise it makes no difference whatsoever.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Not in MO.
CC is not justified in MO and as such we must have a CC endorsement.
cirrusly
Regular Member
Whoaa- If MO guts any concealment of firearms from the enumerated 2A right itself I agree then- Inherently OC should be fully legal and completely preempted statewide.
I'm willing to bet the poor folks who were arrested didn't put this much foresight into it though.
Primus
Regular Member
You cited a public school and a court house. You own neither property. So how is it a violation of your constitutional rights?
If the people "community" as whole own that property and they vote for legislation or legislatures that vote said legislation in place that says they don't want guns in their school, then your SOL. Back to private property rights.
For example, that's certainly not my courthouse. I make no claims to any ownership in anyway. Nor the school since I don't pay a dime for either place. So they can tell me to keep my gun away. If I don't like it, keep myself away.
While there are some the infringe 2a, these are done under private property rights, so I wouldnt call it a infringement, just a following others rights.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
OC for ME
Regular Member
It is possible that a law could be passed to negate the CC justification provision of the state constitution, but that would be unconstitutional and would be ruled as such. The legislature exercised their authority to set the conditions "to justify" CC lawfully in Missouri. The state supreme court affirmed the privilege to CC in MO. I accept the CC privilege because the people of the state voted this "restriction" into the state constitution.
What is frustrating is RSMo 21.750.3, which authorizes political subdivisions to ban OC, or place conditions on OC.....a violation of Article I, Section 23 of the state constitutional. And cops go along with this blatant violation of the state constitution by enforcing these OC bans.
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
smells like verbal diarrhoea to me. The only justification needed to CC is the choice of the citizen.
Private businesses may have the technical right to refuse entry but denial of entry based on firearms should result in virtual shunning by the community to the degree they either change the policy or close down. Government buildings however are another matter. The Constitution was designed to limit the federal government. Now while it's true a courthouse for example is state not federal it is also true that the states can only make laws that are not covered by the Constitution. The Second Amendment is, therefore the banning of firearms in government building by statute is another non-law immediately voided by the Constitution.
Speaking of verbal diarrhea, it is not true that courthouse are state buildings, there are municipal, county, state, and federal courthouses. That's the first fact you have wrong. Secondly, your other fact that the states are prevented from making laws not covered by the Constitution is false. The Second Amendment has not been incorporated against the states by the Supreme Court yet (which is something I believe we would all want.)
You are welcome to hold your opinions on all these matters, and share them here. But, when you present falsehoods as facts, you show yourself as either a idiot or a liar.
You are welcome to hold your opinions on all these matters, and share them here. But, when you present falsehoods as facts, you show yourself as either a idiot or a liar.
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
There are indeed. My mind latched onto state law for some reason. However:
This is exactly why I call these many infringements and no gun zones non-laws. That MO clause is invalid as is the NY SAFE Act and any other demand by state or city. They are not worth the paper written on nor the computer hard drive space. Of course as I said before private establishments may ban guns it at least should put the business at very great risk of closure due to refusal to patronise that establishment
The thing that you are either unable to find or unwilling to look for is called the Doctrine of Selective Incorporation. You might want to read up on that. It will explain how these are legal under the current set of laws. I disagree with it, but until the Supreme Court incorporates the 2A against the states, these laws remain valid.
Of course, you are welcome to disobey any law you wish, as long as your are willing to bear the consequences. But please don't do that in Missouri, we are working very hard to overturn the restriction, and it doesn't take much to upset this apple cart.
Of course, you are welcome to disobey any law you wish, as long as your are willing to bear the consequences. But please don't do that in Missouri, we are working very hard to overturn the restriction, and it doesn't take much to upset this apple cart.
Redbaron007
Regular Member
SJR36-Amendment to the constitution is very good....it needs to go to the voters this year (Fall).
SB613 and House version are a patch....but a patch is a start, especially when it is difficult to get the full cure.
Why these folks did what they did in Cape is unknown. Who knows, they could be acting on the side of anti's to stir things up in the legislature. It may have worked. :uhoh:
SB613 and House version are a patch....but a patch is a start, especially when it is difficult to get the full cure.
Why these folks did what they did in Cape is unknown. Who knows, they could be acting on the side of anti's to stir things up in the legislature. It may have worked. :uhoh:
davidmcbeth
Banned
Gotta watch where you step :uhoh:
No guilty would be my decision on a jury .... and I would say for any defendant until anti-RKBA laws are all repealed.