• 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.

St. Louis - Open Carry/Firearm Education Walk - Oct 25, 2014

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
You are certainly welcome to disagree, but let's see what the law says:

29 possession at all times;
30 (b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall
31 display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand
32 of a law enforcement officer;


If you fail to produce your CCW upon demand by a law enforcement officer, you have broken the law.

Only if you believe 565 will pass strict scrutiny and it is fair to say that the right to bear arms in protection of self does not include a disclaimer that you have to pay for that permission.

The walk is about amendment 5, I have said it a hundred times. Because of amendment 5 Sb 656 was not needed and is of no impact.

You may think someone is going to take a ride, I certainly acknowledge that it COULD happen however the purpose of all the advanced notice to authority is to stop exactly that and yes, the authorities have two choices acknowledge we are correct and leave the walkers alone or take action and arrest, they can't have it both ways.

No one seems to want to simply state the laws are null and have them removed from the books so they can intimidate people with the threat of monetary cost to head to court.

Koster won't even answer the question. Don't you think there is something to be said about the silence everyone keeps on it?

I have a lot of respect for you and your post here and we both know I can get over the top fast and I am not trying to do that or be disrespectful at all, I hope you know that having been around here for more than a week :p

I find it remarkable myself that no one in power has the courage to call it either way. I would indeed accept "no, those laws remain completely valid and you will be arrested" as a decision, one I might not agree with but I would agree and acknowledge, but they WONT say it and that is because or better said what I believe to be the reason is they KNOW they are null and just do not want to publicly acknowledge it and lose the intimidation power they have now.

How many people right now want to OC freely but won't because they fear they will be arrested despite thinking that amendment 5 will win in court?

So without regard for other positions, those persons remain restricted from exercising their rights because no one will clarify it and that sir is what we are going to do for them.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
So, to summarize if I'm following everything correctly:

We have two different things going on here. As of October 12th, CCW holders can legally OC throughout the state.....in theory. If one were to be harrassed by police in areas where it was previously forbidden, one could:

1) Simply show them your CCW permit, and in theory, under SB 656's override, they should let you continue about your business. If they do not, you could then test the effectiveness of the alterations to Missouri's constitution by 5A.

or

2) Refuse to show them your ID, and almost definitely test the effectiveness of the alterations to Missouri's constitution by 5A.

This "Open carry walk" being described in this thread has the intent of option #2: To test Missouri's alterations to its constitution under the changes brought about by 5A.

Is this summary accurate?

As I have stated before, I will be carrying downtown somewhere near Oct. 12th with the full intention of obeying the law, and NOT being a "test case". I may become one regardless, but it will not be based on any intentional actions on my part. The internet may provide ample opportunity to "talk a mean game", but I am not going to be a keyboard warrior and put forth any fake bravado. If I am detained, for any reason, I fully intend on showing my "permission slip", as I simply wish to carry without interruption. (May the chains rest lightly upon my shoulders.)

After having read the intentions of BB62, and becoming more familiar with his intent, I have become more comfortable and retract my earlier comments such as referring to it as a "parade" or "dog and pony show". LMTD has helped alleviate many of my concerns.

Keep me informed. I wish everyone who participates the best of luck. I may be amenable to participation in the future, but as of yet, I remain unconvinced, yet open minded.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I was married to a redhead, you don't even phase me ;-)

At the end of the day, it's not about what I think, and it's not about what you think. It's about what the police, DA, judges and juries think. I believe that OC has been legalized everywhere in the state by A5. I also agree with the thinking that you should not have to produce a CCW to OC. But, I also believe that my thoughts don't matter. It all goes back to Al Gore's "controlling legal authority" if you want.

I still say that Amendment 5 is a statement of grand principles, not of laws, and it's the legislature's job to make sure that the laws of the state and of the political subdivision conform to this statement of grand principles we have given them. I think that we all think they don't. But, the legislature has not been in session (except the Veto Override session) since A5 was passed, so we have to wait until the next legislative term for that. I don't like it, but I'm content with that we achieved this year (with respect to SB656, and giddy with joy for A5), and I believe we're on the right arc to get further liberties restored next year.

As far as SB656 not being needed, remember that there was a lot more to SB656 than the tiny little OC piece, those changes were also good. And, I appreciate an explicit statement that I can OC with my permit if I so chose.

Personally, I'm a realist, not an idealist. I don't need to know the ten year plan, I specialize in getting us to next month. Both are needed though. That's why I told people if they go to the walk, and are OCing, and don't have a CCW permit, then they're likely to get arrested. If they go with the intent of getting arrested for OC without a CCW, then I won't be angry or upset. I would contribute to their legal fund, as they are doing a great favor to the 2A community.

Now, here's what I think will happen on the walk. You will be stopped at some point, all of your CCW permits will be checked, and you will be lectured to. Who knows, you might even get to eat concrete. I've got no doubt the City of St. Louis is going to make it as uncomfortable as possible, without stepping over the line and arresting anyone. After all, it's to their benefit to not get their ordinances overturned. if everyone at the walk has their CCW, and displays it upon demand, I suspect nobody will get a ticket or a ride. The fact that MO has such a low bar for the definition of arrest would basically mean that all of you were arrested though.

However, we all know that if you get a sufficiently large group together, there is going to be an idiot. Personally, I think the sufficiently large group is 2, me and anyone else. That idiot is going to be the interesting one to watch.

The other issue is what happens if you have but don't show your CCW. That might be a way to push the issue for at $35 ticket instead of up to a year in jail, but I suspect the argument will be that having and not showing is different than not having. While that would be an interesting question to answer, it would not be the one that will benefit the majority of people.

Only if you believe 565 will pass strict scrutiny and it is fair to say that the right to bear arms in protection of self does not include a disclaimer that you have to pay for that permission.

The walk is about amendment 5, I have said it a hundred times. Because of amendment 5 Sb 656 was not needed and is of no impact.

You may think someone is going to take a ride, I certainly acknowledge that it COULD happen however the purpose of all the advanced notice to authority is to stop exactly that and yes, the authorities have two choices acknowledge we are correct and leave the walkers alone or take action and arrest, they can't have it both ways.

No one seems to want to simply state the laws are null and have them removed from the books so they can intimidate people with the threat of monetary cost to head to court.

Koster won't even answer the question. Don't you think there is something to be said about the silence everyone keeps on it?

I have a lot of respect for you and your post here and we both know I can get over the top fast and I am not trying to do that or be disrespectful at all, I hope you know that having been around here for more than a week :p

I find it remarkable myself that no one in power has the courage to call it either way. I would indeed accept "no, those laws remain completely valid and you will be arrested" as a decision, one I might not agree with but I would agree and acknowledge, but they WONT say it and that is because or better said what I believe to be the reason is they KNOW they are null and just do not want to publicly acknowledge it and lose the intimidation power they have now.

How many people right now want to OC freely but won't because they fear they will be arrested despite thinking that amendment 5 will win in court?

So without regard for other positions, those persons remain restricted from exercising their rights because no one will clarify it and that sir is what we are going to do for them.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
However, we all know that if you get a sufficiently large group together, there is going to be an idiot. Personally, I think the sufficiently large group is 2, me and anyone else. That idiot is going to be the interesting one to watch.

LMAO Thank you. I needed that laugh today!!
 

Renegadez

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Lees Summit
Whatever happened to plan for the worst and hope for the best? Don't you carry a gun based on that principle?

I guess someone could plan a walk in KC. They could have it November 1st. It sounds like Renegadez is just the guy to head up the KC walk....

Look, I know of no one planing on intentionally trying to get arrested. If someone is, I would hope they dis-invite themselves.

Lets work to make this a positive walk.

And what's going on in Ferguson has nothing to with us and our message.

We shall overcome!!!!


I am down with joining the walk with KCGUNFAN do we want to do it on the same day as STL walk or wait and see who takes a ride first LOL. Currently A5 not with standing OC is illegal in kc so im sure one us will get a test case. Do we need to notify kc police force in writing before we do this?
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I've got my CCW, so I'm unlikely to ride. I'm considering going to St Louis, bit since I'd likely Amtrak it, I'd probably be unarmed.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

Renegadez

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Lees Summit
I hold a CCW as well but I am guessing here in kc they will arrest regardless of the ccw since Sly just got his law passed and will be itching to use it. So are you saying you are not in for a kc walk?
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I'm saying that if go to St Louis I'm out on the 25th. Depending on my kids, I can be in almost any other time.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

Richieg150

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
432
Location
Show Me State
I hold a CCW as well but I am guessing here in kc they will arrest regardless of the ccw since Sly just got his law passed and will be itching to use it. So are you saying you are not in for a kc walk?

Talked to one of my friends who is a FFL., last week, he had a couple KCMO LEO supervisors in picking up some firearms they had ordered and the very subject was brought up. They told him that the city council passed the no open carry ordinance but the departments, as of last week, haven't received any documentation on it, so have no way of enforcing it and no direction of charges if they were to enforce it. These two supervisors commented that as of now, open carrying itself wont be a problem in their areas, but they are aware of the current amendment 5 change as well as S.B. 656.
 

Oramac

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
572
Location
St Louis, Mo
How many people right now want to OC freely but won't because they fear they will be arrested despite thinking that amendment 5 will win in court?

I can't speak for everyone, but I definitely fall into this category. Much as I'd love to OC freely (and fully believe the law provides for it), I simply cannot afford the risk of a costly legal battle.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I can't speak for everyone, but I definitely fall into this category. Much as I'd love to OC freely (and fully believe the law provides for it), I simply cannot afford the risk of a costly legal battle.
So, come to the walk anyway. If you have a license: OC, CC or No C.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
I was married to a redhead, you don't even phase me ;-)

At the end of the day, it's not about what I think, and it's not about what you think. It's about what the police, DA, judges and juries think. I believe that OC has been legalized everywhere in the state by A5. I also agree with the thinking that you should not have to produce a CCW to OC. But, I also believe that my thoughts don't matter. It all goes back to Al Gore's "controlling legal authority" if you want.
I generally agree with kcgunfan as well as superlite on this.

I think that SB656 is pretty straight forward and, if holding a CCW and presenting it upon demand if OC, that there won't be any issue or, if there is, that the issue will go away before even hitting the courtroom. I intend to OC in Cape Girardeau in my day to day life as soon as it is in effect and do not anticipate any real issues as the rank and file patrol cops seem pretty 2A friendly and the fascists among the city gov't aren't going to be on the street trying to arrest me. However, I won't be willing to throw away $35 and waste time in muni court to assert OC under A5 by refusing to present my CCW.

Now, since I think SB656 is pretty straight forward, I don't think that any CCW holder walking in this is going to have an issue unless they refuse to present their CCW in which case, $35 and waste as day in muni court.

Walking OC in St. Louis without being a licensed CC is another story. For those people I think it will just come down to whether the City of St. Louis is inclined to expend the resources required on their side to be the test case for A5 on this issue. With everything going on in that area, I would think it about 50/50 chance that they would. With defenses already lodged in cases under A5 I think there is a not unreasonable chance they may sit back on this and wait until they get some rulings on the other cases to see what direction the wind is blowing in the courts. On the other hand, they may be willing to give people are ride to the station figuring they can always quietly drop charges if the judicial winds start blowing against such position. If walkers with no CC license refuse to present any id asserting no RAS to ask under A5 I think the likelihood of a ride increases. Meh, speculation can be fun...

I can't make it regardless and being that I do have a MO CCW my presence does nothing for A5. I appreciate that there are people who have the time, resources and inclination to put themselves out there to assert such an interpretation of A5.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I submit my endorsement under protest. Amendment 5 relieves me of the requirement to possess a endorsement. I only have a endorsement because other states do not recognize the OC is a right, not to be questioned or subject to state permission, under the 2A of the US Constitution and our state constitution.
This is the statement, or one close to this, that the cop(s) and any reporters should be receiving. Comply with the law while working to change the law...or attitudes regarding the law. STL is in a bit of a transition at the moment and the STLPD head honcho is not "citizen with a gun" friendly.

The point of this social outing is to get as many citizens as we can to participate at the same time. The more folks the better chance our message will be accurately reflected by the local news outlets. Well, the Compost & Disgrace will not accurately reflect anything but the anti-gun agenda.

If the local news folks portray our message in the correct light then the pressure is greater on anti-gun municipalities to be proactive instead of costly reaction. We all know that the path of least resistance is to repeal the OC bans and move forward. MO is a OC w/o permission state and politicians know this. They also know that public opinion is not aligned with the anti-gun crowd. Let us give them a easy way out and they then can claim credit the next election cycle for being a staunch supporter of our 2A right.
 

jad316

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Imperial, Missouri.
Do we need to make police department aware of this so we don't have any issue's with general assembly of OCer's? And is this the correct address?. 801 Market St, St Louis, MO 63101

Jim
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I don't know, how many other legal activities do you notify the police of so you don't have any issues?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

randyj

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
115
Location
Independence, Missouri, USA
I don't know, how many other legal activities do you notify the police of so you don't have any issues?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

KCgunfan.....I hear ya, but if I remember correctly from many posts ago....the point of contacting the Police/City Officials etc...was to put them on notice BEFORE the event so as to force their hand in acknowledging via public record that "there is nothing to see here....move along."
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Status update, as just posted to Facebook:

I e-mailed a legal notice to both the St. Louis City Counselor (head lawyer) and the MO Attorney General on September 16. After having heard nothing from either of them, three days later I sent them both the same communications via certified mail.

After subsequent contacts with the City Counselor, **14 days after my initial contact** I was informed that someone from the police department would be getting back to me about my records request **next week**.

Here's what I requested:

1) Please provide for my review electronic copies of police training materials on 574.010 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, especially its applicability or inapplicability to the open carrying of firearms by individuals
2) Please provide for my review electronic copies of police training materials on the effect of Amendment 5’s modification of Section 23, Article 1 on the appropriate interaction of police officers with individuals openly carrying firearms
3) Please provide for my review electronic copies of police training materials on the matter of Terry v Ohio.

Given Chief Dotson's feeling about the RKBA, I suspect items 1 and 2 haven't been done, so there's no wonder it's taking a while to produce something... Item 3 is the bread and butter of a police department - it's the case where Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) was created. This part of the records request should have been producible in a couple of nanoseconds.

Meanwhile, I have decided to send a records request to the AG in addition to my prior communication. I'll keep everyone posted on it.

Finally, I had a pleasant phone conversation with a law enforcement specialist at the Gateway Arch. I had been in prior contact with two other officers there since 9/19. Guess what? THEY haven't heard from the City Counselor, SLMPD or the AG either! I'll post more about this situation as it develops also.

Keep on spreading the word and remember: ** Make sure you have a SLING for your longarm **
 
Last edited:

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I don't know, how many other legal activities do you notify the police of so you don't have any issues?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Ah yes, but as various people keep asserting, "It's only legal via SB 656!" I beg to disagree.

I suggest that anyone who is still not clear on why the notice, or what I believe, or why I posted this walk, re-read the excellent questions LMTD posed and my responses: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Oct-25-2014&p=2092052&viewfull=1#post2092052
 
Top