Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Thoughts on suggesting a needed memo to law enforcement agencies on SB656

  1. #1
    Regular Member Firepit1x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Labadie
    Posts
    16

    Thoughts on suggesting a needed memo to law enforcement agencies on SB656

    I borrowed this from a Cincinnati Ohio Law Enforcement Memo and revised it and would love some more input on it. I would like to send a final draft to law enforcement agencies to suggest it become an official memo to their staff. I'm not willing to touch on Amendment 5 just yet.
    I work for St. Louis County and have weekly contact with the police department and I would have no reservations on sharing it with them first.

    LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMO ON OPEN CARRY OF A FIREARM IN MISSOURI:
    With the passage of Missouri Senate Bill 656 Missouri law permits the open carry of a firearm if the person has a valid conceal carry permit with few exceptions. Citizens may openly carry firearms in public places unless there is a specific prohibition against carrying a firearm in that place
    (police station, school safety zone, hospital, courthouse, etc..)
    The possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition” is controlled only by state and federal law.
    Local municipal laws may only regulate the discharge of firearms.

    Therefore, officers should not charge individuals with violations of the any Municipal Code unless the ordinance deals with the discharge of a firearm.

    Many people worry when they see someone openly carrying a gun. Officers can expect to receive calls when this happens. But, openly carrying a firearm, by itself, is not illegal. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer about seeing someone with a gun in public is probably not enough to support an investigative detention.

    In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual. If the individual is doing nothing else that arouses suspicion, simply wearing a gun will not justify a detention.

    It is important to note, open carry by itself also would not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses. If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm—and doing nothing else—the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support a charge.

    Private businesses or property owners may prohibit all firearms on their property.
    They may post signs prohibiting firearms or they may order a person to leave for such behavior. Criminal Trespass is the appropriate charge if a person is on private property in violation of such a prohibition.
    Last edited by Firepit1x; 10-22-2014 at 09:42 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    You might want to make it correct first...

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member Firepit1x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Labadie
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    You might want to make it correct first...

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    and this is why I'm asking for input. Please help me correct it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    First of all, political subdivisions may still regulate open carry. With that being the case, most of the rest of your post becomes untrue.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Firepit1x View Post
    and this is why I'm asking for input. Please help me correct it.
    He was helpful !

    Your letter is toooo long. Shorten it. My tip 4 u.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    First of all, political subdivisions may still regulate open carry. With that being the case, most of the rest of your post becomes untrue.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Please explain in what way may they still regulate open carry.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    It's right there in the state statutes. Their ability to regulate it has been curtailed slightly, but it's still in there.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Regular Member Firepit1x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Labadie
    Posts
    16

    I disagree

    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    First of all, political subdivisions may still regulate open carry. With that being the case, most of the rest of your post becomes untrue.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    I respectfully disagree. The Senate Bill clearly states:

    The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.

    Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.................

    No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way.............


    In case others would like to read:
    http://legiscan.com/MO/text/SB656/2014

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    You're welcome to disagree with me. That doesn't make you right though. First of all. don't quote from unofficial sources, it reduces your credibility substantially.

    The proper reference for SB656 is the following: http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/pdf-bill/tat/SB656.pdf You might wonder why I don't source the official website version of the statutes of the State of MO. Let's just say they're not famous for keeping those up to date. It should get there eventually, but isn't there now. Granted the Senate website and the GA website aren't official official either, but are more official than some 3rd party.

    Secondly, you need to be careful with those ellipses, they can cover important information. You supplied a part of subsections 1 and 2, but the issue is in section 3. What you are missing is the following:

    3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection,
    14 nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political
    15 subdivision
    which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010
    16 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open
    17 carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms
    18 within a jurisdiction,
    provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of
    19 section 252.243.
    The bold is mine, and intended to draw your attention to the important bit. This text has not changed as part of SB656. The new part of the law relevant here is as follows:

    25 (a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or
    26 permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid
    27 concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit
    28 from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her
    29 possession at all times;
    So, for somewhere around 3% of the population, they can now open carry in places that prohibited it before. The other 97% or so is out of luck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firepit1x View Post
    I respectfully disagree. The Senate Bill clearly states:

    The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.

    Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.................

    No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way.............


    In case others would like to read:
    http://legiscan.com/MO/text/SB656/2014

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Troy, MO
    Posts
    26

    ?

    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post



    So, for somewhere around 3% of the population, they can now open carry in places that prohibited it before. The other 97% or so is out of luck.
    Who is the 3%? Confused.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    That's the rough estimate on the percentage of residents that have their CCW.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    That's the rough estimate on the percentage of residents that have their CCW.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    yep

    Its only the CCW holders that unrestricted. If you don't have a CCW you are still regulated by the municipalities.
    Last edited by sdjames; 10-23-2014 at 02:05 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Firepit1x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Labadie
    Posts
    16

    I think

    I think the better course of action might be to share the link to the Ohio memo with other agencies.
    If the agencies haven't put out a memo or policy change they can at least see or borrow what Ohio offered and I think it makes a bigger impact to see it on the official memo and not coming from the average citizen.
    I may share more of my thoughts directly with St. Louis County since I'm an employee here.

    Thanks for your input.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Firepit1x View Post
    I borrowed this from a Cincinnati Ohio Law Enforcement Memo and revised it and would love some more input on it. I would like to send a final draft to law enforcement agencies to suggest it become an official memo to their staff. I'm not willing to touch on Amendment 5 just yet. I work for St. Louis County and have weekly contact with the police department and I would have no reservations on sharing it with them first.

    LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMO ON OPEN CARRY OF A FIREARM IN MISSOURI:
    With the passage of Missouri Senate Bill 656 Missouri law statutes RSMo 21.750.3 and 571.037 permits the open carry or, the brief open display of a concealed firearm if the person has possesses a valid conceal carry permit endorsement issued IAW RSMo 571.101 thru 571.121, or a valid concealed carry permit issued by another state which is recognized by this state, with few exceptions listed in RSMo 571.107. Citizens may openly carry firearms in public places unless there is a specific prohibition against carrying a firearm in that place (police station, school safety zone, hospital, courthouse, etc..)
    The possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition” is controlled only by state and federal law.
    Local municipal laws may only regulate the discharge of firearms.

    Therefore, officers should not charge individuals with violations of the any Municipal Code unless the ordinance deals with the discharge of a firearm.


    Many people worry when they see someone openly carrying a gun. Officers can expect to receive calls when this happens. But, openly carrying a firearm, by itself, is not illegal yes it is in some cities and towns. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer about seeing someone with a gun in public is probably not enough to support an investigative detention.

    In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual. If the individual is doing nothing else that arouses suspicion, simply wearing a gun will not justify a detention.

    It is important to note, open carry by itself also would not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses. If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm—and doing nothing else—the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support a charge.

    Private businesses or property owners may prohibit all firearms on their property.
    They may post signs prohibiting firearms or they may order a person to leave for such behavior. Criminal Trespass is the appropriate charge if a person is on private property in violation of such a prohibition.
    See mark-ups above.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Firepit1x View Post
    Private businesses or property owners may prohibit all firearms on their property.
    They may post signs prohibiting firearms or they may order a person to leave for such behavior. Criminal Trespass is the appropriate charge if a person is on private property in violation of such a prohibition.
    While I may be wrong, it's my understanding that it's not trespassing to walk past a sign. The trespass comes into play when you are asked to leave by someone in charge of the establishment and refuse. This would mean a cop would have no authority to tell you to leave a store if a sign was posted, only management could. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Drytchnath View Post
    While I may be wrong, it's my understanding that it's not trespassing to walk past a sign. The trespass comes into play when you are asked to leave by someone in charge of the establishment and refuse. This would mean a cop would have no authority to tell you to leave a store if a sign was posted, only management could. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
    Depends on the language of the municipality.

    +++++++

    As I re-read your post, I think you're reference to trespassing is the 'No Guns' signage, correct? I was focusing on No Trespassing signs, not the No Guns signs. I don't disagree with your post in this reference.
    Last edited by Redbaron007; 10-23-2014 at 02:25 PM. Reason: clarification
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22
    From Chapter 571 Weapons Offenses Section 571.107 http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM

    571.107. 1. A concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:

    (15) Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry permit or endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry permit or endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry permit or endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;

    2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, or a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.

    Note this only refers to concealed carry. Unless there is something else on the books then the signs would not refer to OCers at all, leaving only a trespassing charge if you were asked to leave and refused.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    RSMo 571.107.1(15)...does anything strike you as odd regarding the wording? I mean "concealed means concealed" right?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    RSMo 571.107.1(15)...does anything strike you as odd regarding the wording? I mean "concealed means concealed" right?
    So....are you saying or implying these do not apply to OCing?
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    RSMo 571.107.1(15)...does anything strike you as odd regarding the wording? I mean "concealed means concealed" right?
    My entire point was the only mention of the signs in any law was for concealed carry, and even then walking past them with a concealed weapon is still not a crime. This was in response to the OP including in his 'memo' that it is trespassing to simply carry past a sign even if you are OCing.

    In all honesty the no firearms signs are just a useless gesture that seem to make the ignorant feel secure. As if it's a physical deterrent to crime.

    I was curious to see if I had missed something because I routinely carry past the signs, and while I have yet to be asked to leave a business for it, I would prefer to avoid legal issues.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    So....are you saying or implying these do not apply to OCing?
    If courts read the laws using their plain language meaning, as they are wont to say, then no, 571.107.1(15) does not apply to OC. Me, a no CC sign is they same as "I don't need your steenking money!"
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    OC for Me:
    In all honesty the no firearms signs are just a useless gesture that seem to make the ignorant feel secure. As if it's a physical deterrent to crime.
    Yeah, I think we should all OC and wear T-Shirts with a gun-buster sign and a 'no carry on premises logo'.

    I mean, it's cheaper than a plate vest, right?

  23. #23
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    If courts read the laws using their plain language meaning, as they are wont to say, then no, 571.107.1(15) does not apply to OC. Me, a no CC sign is they same as "I don't need your steenking money!"
    Concur 100%
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  24. #24
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    For an on-topic bit of input, it's a waste of time. Words on a page do not translate into the common practice, iow.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Maybe not, fore warned is fore armed. It would be exceedingly difficult to claim a "training issue" if it could be documented that the issue and one possible solution were provided by a concerned citizen. Snail-mail, signature required, return receipt required, to the Top Cop at the cop shop. They may throw the cop shop mail lady under the bus to avoid culpability or negligence though.

    Give it a try. Cops these days are not wanting to be perceived as a Seattle PD/NYPD et al (thug cop shop), or a Ferguson PD (not deserving of thug cop shop title at this time), if they can avoid it.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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