OC for ME
Regular Member
may not be the best place to start, but it is a start.
http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)
-
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.
St. Louis - Open Carry/Firearm Education Walk - Oct 25, 2014
- Thread starter BB62
- Start date
http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)
OC for ME
Regular Member
Cape v. Joyce.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994917884SW2d33_1910.xml/CITY OF CAPE GIRARDEAU v. JOYCE
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?122574-Sb-656&p=2091016#post2091016
Post #166 summarizes my take on the opinion.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Event Posting Change request
Thanks.
Please remove the long gun component. We here in Missouri are attempting restore liberty by getting concealable firearms (pistols) OC normalized.
Thanks.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Just as a test, let's say I do so. Let's see a show of hands for how many people are willing to show up for such an event AND refuse to provide ID if asked, while openly carrying sidearms.
Last edited:
Well I am starting to struggle with this a bit.
There are a few folks you are opting to argue with that have been instrumental in working for OC rights in MO. We actually have a pretty good group of folks and have had meetings ranging from 2 to 50 in the St Louis area, KC has also had a strong showing though I have never made it over there myself. I know several meetings in excess of 20 have taken place.
Since folks have spent coin, written countless letters, attended meetings, talked to legislators, made phone calls, made trips to the capitol, put monies in campaign coffers, and all around supported OC for mow, why did you expect them to follow you down town to stir up a bunch of crap after begging for permissions?
You seem hellbent on holding some sort of event to be a legal irritant to the police and I for one fail to understand why. As all you have likely done is plant a seed in the mind of the atty without regard for the political leaning and now they will plan on how to deal with the "event" and go forward from there as they see fit. The officers will be stuck between a rock and a hard spot because they will be under the political pressure without regard for their own thoughts and they will just simply wish it was not happening at all. On one side you have the politicians screwing with them and on the other you are screwing with them as a threat of a civil suit.
Why you think after all the work folks have put in you are going to swoop in and put on some grand show that is of any interest to the folks who got it done is kind of silly. As one of the folks involved in making things happen I can assure you I am not really nice enough to organize such an event myself as I rub a lot of folks the wrong way, but I NEVER pretend otherwise either.
We fought to see change because we could not walk our dogs some 30 yards because the muni on the other side of the street restricted it which was stupid, we fought to get change because it should not matter where you are located as to your ability to defend yourself and make the choices on carry YOU see fit. We did not fight the fight to plan and plot events to create issues for the police or local governments and I reckon you are going to fall seriously short of your goals for the event as it appears that is what you are trying to do.
As for not showing the police ID, well I just treat that about the same as your event, I simply ask them to leave. t is really not some kind of big deal to be polite and ask them to leave you alone and then ignore any additional questions. They get that hint just fine and they make all the radio calls etc and then move along politely wishing you a nice day.
Your intent may have been different, but perception is reality and that is how I perceive your event and my response to it.
Welcome to the "show me state" and sir, when it comes to OC in MO, I do not believe you have shown me or anyone else doing the daily work over the last several years anything but an antagonistic position and it ain't sellin.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
And I'm struggling to understand what it is you're trying to tell me, and how it is that you think my event is about irritating anyone, except those who refuse to accept that the constitution has been changed and that a right is a right. I fail to see how OCing with a CCW license is about exercising a RIGHT.
Apparently a number of people in the RKBA community are confused too. People keep conflating SB 656 with A5, and we both know that's not the case.
Did you work on Amendment 5? Can you tell me more about how it came to be? THAT's where my interest is.
Last edited:
Amendment 5 came to be from the previous years nullification bill that passed, veto'ed and then when two previous yes votes turned tail on it, failed over ride.
I did communicate on both the nullification version last year, as well as the amendment 5 version this year. Since amendment 5 was indeed a voter referendum it was the 67% of voters that ultimately made it happen. Changes to Mo constitution are voted not legislated.
As for the language adjustments, I would offer that Greg Jeffery co-founder of the GCLA likely had the greatest input and impact.
As far as your walk goes, as I said, it is a perception you have given whether or not it was the intent is only information you have, I am speaking to how it was received, nothing more.
BTW you have mentioned org'ing the walk which depending upon size could require a permit or specific spacing of persons not to qualify needing one. you have also mentioned the STL PD and City atty or perhaps it was county which would not apply as the city is not part of the county but also note, you mention the Arch which is not part of the city as it is a national monument aka federal grounds so prior to making any mistakes you will need to be well schooled in the federal guidelines as well.
I remain uninterested and recommend against it while at the same time fully support your right to disagree and move forward as you see fit.
Last edited:
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
First, thank you.
What is GCLA?
Let me ask you this, LMTD, what does Amendment 5's passage mean to you and the like-minded people who apparently worked with you to get SB 656 passed and overridden? IOW, what's the point of Amendment 5?
As for the Arch, I am aware of the legality of being on Park Service land armed - as long as I and others stay out of the buildings.
Last edited:
Not enough time to explain the history and political push behind amendment 5 so you get the condensed version only.
2003 two counties used the concealed weapons portion of the constitution to attempt to block CCW saying it was actually against the constitution. that is the reason it was tweaked, preventing future abuse.
It also to a certain degree was a one finger salute to the ever imposing feds and never underestimate the marketing usefulness of legislation vs the functionality, they are not always married.
As far as OC goes, my opinion is that it will likely be adjudicated that laws against OC are now invalid. I believe this fairly minor charge for an ordinance violation will be pushed very hard by the prosecution to work to a plea for any violation to prevent it from happening. If a person opts to spend a lot of cash, I believe the "strict scrutiny" adoption for interpretation will invalidate the law, but it will take at least ONE judges gavel to fall first and might take several.
Again there is a LOT to the law and I do not have time to hit them all, those IMHO are two important to the discussion points.
On a side note, if you opt to conduct yourself as the test case for this, understand it will be a MUNI court first and the muni court system within the stl metro area is quite flawed and said to be corrupt and that dog will hunt. We are talking about voter precincts that have had a few of those oddities you hear about like more votes than folks, literally 20k voters and not ONE voted in an opposing direction etc. Don't for a second enter the game thinking it will be fought fair, it does not work that way.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Thanks for your response and explanation, LMTD.
What I get from it is exactly what I thought - you acknowledge that A5 isn't worth the paper it's printed on until it's put to the test in court or on the street. It, just like SB 656, is going to be ignored - especially the part where OC doesn't equal RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion).
Going forward for years, LEOs who don't like OC aren't going to threaten gun charges against OCers, they're going to threaten "Peace Disturbance" charges, or other things that aren't directly gun-related. Missouri is going to be on the same path that Ohio has been on - LEOs and prosecutors ignoring both, and OCers are going to take the hit. Missouri's Constitutional RKBA is stronger than Ohio's, which is good. But, despite that, if anyone thinks that the powers-that-be are going to give up their anti-OC attitudes without being sued, I'd like to get some of whatever substance they're using.
What's a good way to curtail these kinds of indignities? To start off with, one needs to make full use of the tools available - starting with Amendment 5's changes, and the related demand of the state of Missouri to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. One puts the powers-that-be on notice, as I have with the City Counselor and the Attorney General, that there will be a group of openly armed people coming to visit their fair city. That notice, a legal mechanism, takes away their ability to claim "All these armed people showed up and we had to respond forcefully to quell the disturbance!!". One uses the benefits of the RIGHTS now firmly enshrined in your constitution sooner rather than later, with the biggest dog in the pack. Get that dog in line, and the rest will eventually follow.
edited to add: One also does records requests to find out what kind of training their officers have been given with regard to individuals open carrying, as I have. No response has been received yet from STL.
Alternately, MO can rely on its constitutional preemption law, which is better in various ways than Ohio's revised code version, passed in 2007: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68
Challenged by Cleveland, Ohio, it was ruled valid in 2010. BUT, it took until 2012 for Cincinnati to come out with this guidance for officers (#3): http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/linkservid/18BFD387-B6DA-077C-9CA3C47BC23AB4F0/showMeta/0/ and 2014 for Cleveland to come out with this guidance for their officers: Cleveland: http://ohioccw.org/files/OFCC-14-117-OPEN-CARRY-OF-FIREARMS-IN-PUBLIC.pdf
In fact, just in the past few months, an Ohio city settled for $25,000 after their officer charged an open carrier, then told lie after lie in his police report.
Do you get the picture?
If Missourians/people want to show ID until the end of time when they're OCing, that's their choice, BUT... The harassment of OCers, including threats of prosecution for "peace disturbance" and the like will continue until multiple municipalities disseminate information not unlike Cincinnati and Cleveland, AND various other municipalities are sued for the actions of their agents.
I have some experience with this kind of activism, and I have family and friends in Missouri. If you or anyone else wants to read what I've previously posted on this thread as some sort of narcissistic display, you're way wrong. I and those I work with have the knowledge and the resources to change the path that will inevitably develop if no such action is taken, and I want to do so.
What I get from it is exactly what I thought - you acknowledge that A5 isn't worth the paper it's printed on until it's put to the test in court or on the street. It, just like SB 656, is going to be ignored - especially the part where OC doesn't equal RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion).
Going forward for years, LEOs who don't like OC aren't going to threaten gun charges against OCers, they're going to threaten "Peace Disturbance" charges, or other things that aren't directly gun-related. Missouri is going to be on the same path that Ohio has been on - LEOs and prosecutors ignoring both, and OCers are going to take the hit. Missouri's Constitutional RKBA is stronger than Ohio's, which is good. But, despite that, if anyone thinks that the powers-that-be are going to give up their anti-OC attitudes without being sued, I'd like to get some of whatever substance they're using.
What's a good way to curtail these kinds of indignities? To start off with, one needs to make full use of the tools available - starting with Amendment 5's changes, and the related demand of the state of Missouri to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. One puts the powers-that-be on notice, as I have with the City Counselor and the Attorney General, that there will be a group of openly armed people coming to visit their fair city. That notice, a legal mechanism, takes away their ability to claim "All these armed people showed up and we had to respond forcefully to quell the disturbance!!". One uses the benefits of the RIGHTS now firmly enshrined in your constitution sooner rather than later, with the biggest dog in the pack. Get that dog in line, and the rest will eventually follow.
edited to add: One also does records requests to find out what kind of training their officers have been given with regard to individuals open carrying, as I have. No response has been received yet from STL.
Alternately, MO can rely on its constitutional preemption law, which is better in various ways than Ohio's revised code version, passed in 2007: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68
Challenged by Cleveland, Ohio, it was ruled valid in 2010. BUT, it took until 2012 for Cincinnati to come out with this guidance for officers (#3): http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/linkservid/18BFD387-B6DA-077C-9CA3C47BC23AB4F0/showMeta/0/ and 2014 for Cleveland to come out with this guidance for their officers: Cleveland: http://ohioccw.org/files/OFCC-14-117-OPEN-CARRY-OF-FIREARMS-IN-PUBLIC.pdf
In fact, just in the past few months, an Ohio city settled for $25,000 after their officer charged an open carrier, then told lie after lie in his police report.
Do you get the picture?
If Missourians/people want to show ID until the end of time when they're OCing, that's their choice, BUT... The harassment of OCers, including threats of prosecution for "peace disturbance" and the like will continue until multiple municipalities disseminate information not unlike Cincinnati and Cleveland, AND various other municipalities are sued for the actions of their agents.
I have some experience with this kind of activism, and I have family and friends in Missouri. If you or anyone else wants to read what I've previously posted on this thread as some sort of narcissistic display, you're way wrong. I and those I work with have the knowledge and the resources to change the path that will inevitably develop if no such action is taken, and I want to do so.
Last edited:
I think I have the picture, but am not so sure you do on the MO side of things. Even our atty general has stated that 21.750 is constitutional which is what grants the ability of muni's to regulate oc and discharge of a weapon. The muni's as well as the muni pac has fought us every single inch and they are NOT happy at the partial defeat. Since they were willing to head all the way to the state supreme court to fight ccw and they HATE OC, it is not expected to be an easy path at all.
Even the veto required the use of Roberts Rules of Order and a previous question request to break the filibuster two put on in the senate.
Since we have regular attempts at various levels of gun control from some in the legislature it is notable that it could all change next year. Hell, this year one of em tried to push a bil to make the victim of a crime a criminal if they failed to report that crime. Being as there is no entrance exam to be involved in state politics in MO, rest assured I can point to it and factually prove you can't fix stupid.
Also don't forget that if you are a legislator and a judge makes a ruling that invalidates a law then you are always capable of claiming either position and be sorry it was out of your control at which point you open your coffer and ask for coin so you can "change such things".
With term limits sending a few of our friends packing and knowing the winds of change happen, I am not going to limit myself at all, however I will not be trying to do anything high profile either.
I am not skeptical of your motives as I am the results of the actions.
I actually am a bit more of a radical than one might think from these post, but I have listened to a great many folks here on these boards and in person and my more aggressive manners are not always the best choice.
Personally, I still think putting the politicians heads who caused bans to go into effect on to sheep pooping on the US constitution remains brilliant idea for a billboard and only cost about 1500 bucks for a month but others advised they did not think it would be as effective as I did.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
From your writings it appears that you and I are cut from some of the same cloth, even though our types of activism may differ. Going forward, since I don't know you well, understand that no offense is meant if I say things you already know - just consider it directed at those who may continue to feel that this event is about antagonism and reversion rather than education and advancement.
I think it's fair to say that we both realize that open carry activism can have its downside, depending on where and how its done, how the participants conduct themselves, and what party or parties are the focus of the education or protest. Of course the same goes for individual activism. As an organizer, I think my records speaks for itself as to how sensitive I am to such things, but as you've said, I'm not current on the history of Missouri's political ebbs and flows. I don't at all dismiss the value of having such knowledge during the planning and execution of an event, but I also don't think that a lack of it (not a complete lack of it, mind you) is a brick wall.
I previously spelled out the course I think things will take in MO if a line in the sand is not drawn by the participants, but just as importantly, by the lawyers. It's this type of event that demands intervention by municipal lawyers - THEY direct what's what's going to happen - at the event, but more importantly in the memos and training materials used by officers.
It's the lawyers in Cincinnati and Cleveland (and Riverside: $25K settlement) who, before or after incidents, recognize the legal risks of taking on someone or a group of someones who may be just as versed in the law as they are. They'll be damned if they allow themselves or their client(s) to be dragged into Federal Court over an issue they are more likely than not to lose on. If that's the course STL wants to take, then they can bring it on, but if not, IMHO the "results of the actions" are more likely to be that the lawyers will direct officers as follows: "DO NOT do x, y and z!".
Could the muni PAC say "It's ON!"? Of course. Could a local politician complain to state level politician that "Something MUST be done!"? Sure. But are they willing to take on the issue over a bunch of people peacefully exercising their rights when 67% of the electorate just approved a powerful constitutional amendment on the subject? I don't think so, but I recognize that anything's possible - even though I rate the political intelligence of St. Louis above Cleveland.
This isn't my first rodeo, and if they want to tangle, especially with the newly enlightened me (tips hat to LMTD), I have the time and resources to make their use of taxpayer funds a total waste.
I dunno - you seem pretty controlled and well-mannered to me!
This isn't my first rodeo, and if they want to tangle, especially with the newly enlightened me (tips hat to LMTD), I have the time and resources to make their use of taxpayer funds a total waste.
I dunno - you seem pretty controlled and well-mannered to me!
Well ok, you have peaked my interest, but I gotta tell ya, there are not that many round here that would agree with that last line lol many may have spit a beverage upon their monitor reading that one!
So allow me to try and clarify your point and make sure we have agreement upon your goal.
1. You believe that amendment 5 has achieved a position close to total constitutional carry
2. you believe this means sb 656 is irrelevant as amendment 5 already cleared OC for everyone everywhere they are legally allowed to be in the state of MO regardless of permits.
3. You believe that the cities may indeed continue to keep restrictions in place to discourage the practice without regard for the legality.
4. Because these are your own personal thoughts or possibly even the thoughts of counsel you have consulted, you are coming to town to organize an event to express your opinions publicly.
5. Because of item three you are notifying the city of the event so they must make a decision instead of later down the road when a less fortunate OC'er without the means to fight the city should they take the aggressive posture and arrest and you are indeed ready to move forward with a court action should it be required.
If these are indeed items we agree upon, then sir I digress, I am all iI need better understanding not to ignore it all.
This is not something that has not been discussed a bit before, we actually had some pretty strong consideration to voluntarily turning ourselves in and taking that road due to the snails pace legislation tends to move.
Without the history here it is hard perhaps to evaluate the less than stellar greeting you have gotten but allow folks this, you hit several hot buttons and put the sheep dogs into defense mode. See we have had more than a few "call the police chief to get permission" as well as intentionally triggering events as well as actively stating they were looking to get paid etc.
If your motives are pretty much in line with the five points listed, you are going to find a lot more support than you have found so far as those are not at all what the perception of the first post was by more than one.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Yes, I do. Whether or not the MO Supreme Court would see it that way I don't know, and I wouldn't complain if they did. (they should, btw) The trend for high courts is to say that OC is a right and CC is a privilege. If presented with the issue and they were to say the reverse, then they would be seriously out of step with every other high court that has ruled on such matters. So, at minimum, I believe that there is no doubt that under MO's Constitution OC is a right - a right which should be exercised without thought of presenting ID unless RAS of a crime is present.
Yes I do, at minimum as it applies to OC. I recognize that because of personal circumstances an individual may not want to challenge the notion that OC requires a license in certain places because it's not yet settled law, but then again S23, A1, with A5's modifications is strong and straightforward - and it demands the the state uphold it.
I can state as a certainty that they will do so; unless somehow the powers-that-be in MO are magically different than their counterparts in OH (and everywhere else). In their efforts to enforce their biases rather than the law, politicians and police officials who dislike open carry (for one thing) will keep laws on the books, refer to laws that have been superseded, and threaten the use of other, non-weapons-specific portions of the law to intimidate citizens into not exercising their right to open carry. As I mentioned in a previous post, in Ohio such things are STILL going on years after the law was changed to specifically make OC legal. (O.R.C. 9.68: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68)
Absolutely. They are my thoughts - thoughts that have so far been upheld by the legal research I and others have done. Although legal research is ongoing, the language of A23, S1 is clear. There continues to be NO indication that the legislature and the 67% of voters who voted for the measure meant to water down the notion that a RIGHT is a RIGHT. I am coming to town to express my opinions publicly, to exercise my First and Second Amendment rights under the US Constitution, and my rights under the MO Constitution. The effect of this exercise of rights and demands made upon public officials for their training materials is to get those in positions of power to either recognize things for what they are, or be prepared to fight a battle that they will lose AND that will be a precedent for others who want to take the same stance.
That's correct. It's to put down a line in the sand, to establish a precedent that the behavior is legal. It's also helpful for PR purposes. Imagine a bunch of peacefully armed people showing up, for the first time in St. Louis' modern history, without any prior communication. How would it be reported? What goal would be achieved? I submit that it would be asinine and counterproductive.
Understand that my communications with the various powers-that-be was not to get permission, it was to put them on notice. Notice is a powerful legal tool - formally informing another party that you are planning to take a particular action. In layman's terms: it is incumbent upon the receiving party, in this case so far, the city of St. Louis and the MO Attorney General, to object if they feel that such an action is illegal. To not do so, and then to arrest individuals taking part in the described activity would be entrapment. Silence is acceptance.
Finally, YES, if they want to come up with a flimsy excuse for why S23, A1 doesn't mean just what it says, and arrest me when I do what I've said I'll do, I'll see them in local court, then they'll see me in Federal Court.
Based on your questions above, and your previous posts, I understand more fully why various parties were wary or even disparaging. Hopefully I have fully answered your questions.
Last edited:
I believe sir that you have indeed indicated a view that is in alignment with not only myself but some of the folks you were butting heads with upon this thread.
Thanks to the clarification I am very much interested in the event and will make not only arrangements to be there but will move forward with trying to get others involved as well. I think there is a great deal pf merit in moving forward now that I know we are on the same page. You may find some of those responding first to this thread also interested. Superlite is one of the first advocates purposefully supporting the cause through everyday carry during normal activities.
I like the idea of putting it into court on OUR terms in contrast to it being a victim unable to afford the incident unexpectedly.
How about the rest? Can't speak for them but I think we have indeed turned a corner and you are about to find you have far more support now that it is a lot clearer for everyone.
Thanks
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
THANK YOU SIR!! I really appreciate it.
I look forward to meeting you and everyone else, mending fences where necessary, and making this event a success.
I will report on things here and on Facebook as things go forward: https://www.facebook.com/events/690379891057306/
Thanks again.
Last edited:
randyj
Regular Member
Although I do not post on here regularly....I check in and read the goings on everyday. Over the last several years I believe I've gotten to "know" (as best one can on a message board) LMTD pretty well. What he lacks in social charm he more than makes up for with honesty, integrity and knowledge (at least with respect to MO. gun laws etc). hahaha
I have come to respect and value his opinion and insight on these matters. That's not to say he's always right on every topic, but simply to say that he's a pretty sharp troop and one would be wise to listen carefully to what he has to say. There are several others on this board who I could also say ditto for all of this as well.
Bottom line....count me in as being supportive of this initiative.
Oramac
Regular Member
I would agree with this sentiment. After reading your discussion with LMTD, I agree with the course of action you've set forth. I will certainly keep aware of it, and if possible, I will participate. However, I simply do not have the funding to jump into a legal battle, so mine might be more moral support than physical support.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Will do. Thanks.