Results 1 to 13 of 13

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

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

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

    There will be an Open Carry/Firearm Education Walk in downtown St. Louis on October 25, 2014.

    The walk will begin at the Citygarden/Gateway Mall and continue to the Gateway Arch, where pictures will no doubt be taken, then return to the Citygarden/Gateway Mall. Participants are invited to carry holstered sidearms and/or slung longarms. Lunch plans are in progress, and may well involve a box lunch.

    I have contacted the City Counselor (head lawyer) for the City of St. Louis, and will post his response(s) and contact(s) when I receive them.

    Under Section 23, Article 1, as amended by Amendment 5, such a walk should be considered in compliance with the law. Whether STL wants to view things that way, or fight it, I have no idea. One thing is for sure, if the want a fight, I will give it to them. I hope to see you there!

    Here is the event on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/690379891057306/

    And here is a MO thread about the walk: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...lk-Oct-25-2014

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    BB62 apparently feels that Amendment 5 means political subdivisions may no longer ban Open Carry. He is, of course, welcome to that opinion. But right now, we don't know if that opinion is shared by anyone that matters (Police, DA, Judges.) Unless you have a barrel full of 50 dollar bills, you should carefully consider attend armed if you do not posses a CCW permit.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    BB62 apparently feels that Amendment 5 means political subdivisions may no longer ban Open Carry. He is, of course, welcome to that opinion. But right now, we don't know if that opinion is shared by anyone that matters (Police, DA, Judges.) Unless you have a barrel full of 50 dollar bills, you should carefully consider attend armed if you do not posses a CCW permit.
    Clearly the bottom line is it's what the powers-that-be think that matters, but what else could Amendment 5 possibly mean, except full constitutional carry?

    A "show of force" by a bunch of people, armed or not, especially people who in the run-up to this walk communicate with their legislators that they don't like being jerked around by people who read "black" as "white" would be powerful.

    People need to do more than simply show up for this event or Amendment 5 is worthless.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I'm not disagreeing with you at all. But as a widower with two young kids, my life does not afford me the level of activism I'd like. Never mind the fact that I'm five hours away.

    My issue is not what you are doing, not at all. My issue is that you are presenting it as perfectly legal, when that had not been established.

    If you need to tell half truths to get people on your side, you should reconsider your strategy.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I'm not disagreeing with you at all. But as a widower with two young kids, my life does not afford me the level of activism I'd like. Never mind the fact that I'm five hours away.

    My issue is not what you are doing, not at all. My issue is that you are presenting it as perfectly legal, when that had not been established.

    If you need to tell half truths to get people on your side, you should reconsider your strategy.
    I must disagree.

    The Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other things, that a State may not abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive“any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment also confirms that the right to keep and bear arms is considered fundamental in every state. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: “Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.”

    Inalienable and unalienable are synonymous.

    Section 23, article I, Constitution of Missouri states:
    That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.
    The House and Senate asked the citizens of Missouri this question: "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?"

    And the voters said yes.

    Viz, the individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Missouri Constitution, is now a recognized constitutionally protected right in every part of Missouri. The Missouri Constitution makes clear this right is unalienable and guaranteed. Accordingly, the the Attorney General has indicated that the state will be “obligated to uphold” and cannot “decline to protect” individual rights. In other words, the Attorney General and every prosecutor across the state is required to represent individual Missourians in protecting their rights when it comes to openly carrying their arms.

    Why, because the Attorney General and all those prosecutors under him freely held up their right hand and took an oath to support the United States Constitution and Missouri Constitution.

    Statutes do not and cannot trump the constitution. And just because a statute is presumed to be constitutional, that does not make it so.

    To deprive citizens of the right to possess any firearm would thwart the right that was so thoughtfully granted by our forefathers and the drafters of our Constitution. Typically, legislative restrictions on fundamental constitutional rights must pass the highest level of judicial review-strict scrutiny. Under this standard, a law that seeks to limit the exercise of a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional unless the state can prove that it is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, and that it is narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal.

    For example, the legislators can prohibited a person from carrying pistols, bowie knife, dirk, or other dangerous weapon concealed. But, to square itself with the constitution by limiting that right, open carry would have to be declared constitutional. The state cannot statutorily outlaw a right. So, for a court to hold a statute constitutional, the reasoning goes that the statute cannot operate as a prohibition against carrying weapons, but as a regulation of the manner of carrying weapons. And by converting a right into a privilege, carrying concealed, a constitutional right cannot be destroyed, leaving open carry as a right.

    The Attorney General may blow a lot of smoke, but the Attorney General and all his minions know that is all it is, smoke. If the Attorney General does not defend your right then s/he breached their duty. And that is impeachable.
    Last edited by color of law; 09-29-2014 at 10:44 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    If you believe that, great. Now go put your money where your keyboard is. You can sit there and pontificate as much as you want. This issue is not settled. To say that it is, is to tell a lie that will very likely get someone arrested. If someone wants to take one for the team, I think it's great. But let's be honest about where things stand today. That's all I'm saying.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    If you believe that, great. Now go put your money where your keyboard is. You can sit there and pontificate as much as you want. This issue is not settled. To say that it is, is to tell a lie that will very likely get someone arrested. If someone wants to take one for the team, I think it's great. But let's be honest about where things stand today. That's all I'm saying.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Young man, I've been cuffed and stuffed for legally open carrying. I'm really not interested in debating a neophyte. Your free to stand on the sidelines pontificate, but the Section 23, article I, of the Constitution of Missouri speaks for itself. Accusing someone as being a liar because you disagree is not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Being arrested for exercising a right is not uncommon in this country, unfortunately.

    And if you were paying close attention you would realize that someone may just get intentionally arrested.

    Have a nice day.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    I'm planning on being there to support and defend your state and federal rights, even though I'm from Ohio. We all got to stick together.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240
    I'm in!

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    If you believe that, great. Now go put your money where your keyboard is.
    KC, that is exactly what this walk is about, establishing it on our terms. This is being done so someone such as yourself is not arrested without the means to fight it.

    Counsel and a barrel full of 50's shall be present.

    Long long drive for you, understand you might not be able to make it, if you can by all means CCW to protect your family while still supporting the cause is all that is being asked.

    The event host just has that edge to himself like some other guy we both know
    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."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Any and all CCW permits are accepted by Missouri, and offer the same protections as a Missouri permit.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    ... To OC in those municipalities that ban OC (like St. Louis), you must still possess a CHL...
    That's what those in positions of power want you to think.

    While what you say is true if one considers SB656 to be their "protection", there are others, who, like myself, are ready, willing and able to depend upon Amendment 5's modification of Article 1, Section 23 to be all that a legal firearm possessor needs to OC.

    Here is the text of the newly revised Article 1, Section 23: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction."

    A couple things to note: 1) the removal of “concealed weapons” from the section, and 2) that the Attorney General (‘the state of Missouri’) “shall be obligated to uphold these rights”.

    Has A1, S23 been tested before? I don't know. Will it on October 25? I don't know that either. I'm ready for it, but I don't think St. Louis is willing to go there. The national park service wasn't.

    You would think the AG would have released an opinion about the breadth of A1, S23, wouldn't you? Well.... if he was interested in it being used, he would have. Either way, he's going to have to defend the rights defined in the section.
    Last edited by BB62; 10-11-2014 at 10:09 AM.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    ** NEWS ARTICLE **

    Riverfront Times article by Danny Wicentowski: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dai...citygarden.php

    "The current landscape of Missouri gun law is confusing.

    Last month, state legislators overrode Governor Jay Nixon's veto on a bill that instantly erased all regional bans on open carrying firearms. Then, add the passing of Amendment 5, which enshrined all Missouri gun laws as "unalienable," and it would appear that gun rights in the Show Me state have never been stronger.

    But nobody in Missouri -- including law enforcement and St. Louis city officials -- seems to understand the true scope of these new gun laws, says Jeffry Smith, a firearms activist and instructor from Ohio. Smith is leading an "Open Carry/Firearms Educational Walk" this weekend in downtown St. Louis, saying he wants Missourians to know their constitution provides a fundamental right to open carry firearms, even without a concealed carry permit..."


    Please comment on the article page, here, and on the Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/690379891057306/


    Just to be clear, although I have my role in the walk, it simply would not have been possible without the ongoing assistance of LMTD. Thank you again, sir.

Posting Permissions

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