Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Amendment five application is far reaching ladies and gents

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Amendment five application is far reaching ladies and gents

    Metrolink open carry next? Seriously considering it.
    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."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    That whole law related to carrying on buses being hijacking needs to go. Also, we need to extend the same protections for OC that we have in place for CC.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    What kind of organization is the metrolink? Is it private or government owned? Don't they have the right to ban carry & trespass you if they find you carrying? I don't agree with them banning it, just asking.

    I'm not sure I'd want to have an "encounter" with one of their security officers. What I infer from their appearance is an armed mall guard. I could see them being itchy with their revolvers.

    Be careful with you surroundings if you do this. Don't know if you've been on the metrolink recently but there are definitely thugs that frequent it, and you will be in close quarters. Possibly even forced to stand, but of the gun right in front of someone's face who is seated. If anyone would ever consider taking an OC'ed weapon, I think on metro may be one of the best opportunities.

    Any how, support all OC, just pints to think about.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    That whole law related to carrying on buses being hijacking needs to go. Also, we need to extend the same protections for OC that we have in place for CC.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Yes.+1! I have always been concerned about the felony carry on a bus issue and have been puszzled that I very rarely see the issue addressed and don't recall it being addressed in proposed legislation. To be fair, I very well could have missed it. And I certainly am not criticizing those who have worked so hard to make the great progress we have made in the last decade. I am fully capable of being more engaged and raising it as an issue but have not put forth the work to do so.

    That being said, I have always wondered, but have not asked those more involved in the legislative process, if there is some issue with raising the bus prohibition. I suspect that there is some deeper problem with it, maybe related to public transportation authority push back?

    So how much would Metrolink carry help if bus carry is still a felony? Still makes use of public transportation difficult and seriously disenfranchises those who cannot afford private transportation given the spread out nature of the MO metro areas?
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Yes.+1! I have always been concerned about the felony carry on a bus issue and have been puszzled that I very rarely see the issue addressed and don't recall it being addressed in proposed legislation. To be fair, I very well could have missed it. And I certainly am not criticizing those who have worked so hard to make the great progress we have made in the last decade. I am fully capable of being more engaged and raising it as an issue but have not put forth the work to do so.

    That being said, I have always wondered, but have not asked those more involved in the legislative process, if there is some issue with raising the bus prohibition. I suspect that there is some deeper problem with it, maybe related to public transportation authority push back?

    So how much would Metrolink carry help if bus carry is still a felony? Still makes use of public transportation difficult and seriously disenfranchises those who cannot afford private transportation given the spread out nature of the MO metro areas?
    Felony bus carry? Someone want to fill me in on this? would this apply to the train as well?

    Kind of thought concealed was concealed in Missouri.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    It's not felony carry, it's felony hijacking to be armed, concealed or not on a bus. I'm not sure what metrolink's authority is.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5780000305.HTM

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Metrolink open carry next? Seriously considering it.
    You should have called me before I left town! Today, as we passed a Metrolink station, I told my wife I wasn't ready to leave STL yet.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Metrolink open carry next? Seriously considering it.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5780000305.HTM

    "Any passenger who boards a bus with a dangerous or deadly weapon or other means capable of inflicting serious bodily injury concealed upon his person or effects is guilty of the felony of "possession and concealment of a dangerous or deadly weapon" upon a bus. Possession and concealment of a dangerous and deadly weapon by a passenger upon a bus shall be a class C felony. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to duly elected or appointed law enforcement officers or commercial security personnel who are in possession of weapons used within the course and scope of their employment; nor shall the provisions of this subsection apply to persons who are in possession of weapons or other means of inflicting serious bodily injury with the consent of the owner of such bus, or his agent, or the lessee or bailee of such bus."

    Open carrying is NOT concealment. Seriously, had I known the exact verbiage of this law, and the details of any prosecutions for same, I may very well have joined on you on Metrolink before I left.

    The MO train is rolling!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5780000305.HTM

    "Any passenger who boards a bus with a dangerous or deadly weapon or other means capable of inflicting serious bodily injury concealed upon his person or effects is guilty of the felony of "possession and concealment of a dangerous or deadly weapon" upon a bus. Possession and concealment of a dangerous and deadly weapon by a passenger upon a bus shall be a class C felony.

    :-0 ...glad I haven't been on any buses. This is a stupid freaking law. Seriously, someone could very unwittingly commit a felony.



    There isn't anything on the books regarding the metrolink TRAIN is there?

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    What are the laws on building carry in MO? In other words, let's say someone has to go into a building or other structure to board the bus or rail vehicle. Is there a separate prohibition on carrying in such buildings, or government buildings?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    What are the laws on building carry in MO? In other words, let's say someone has to go into a building or other structure to board the bus or rail vehicle. Is there a separate prohibition on carrying in such buildings, or government buildings?
    Building wise there isn't much. Everything in the concealed carry part of the law states gov buildings, post offices, polling places etc. Are off limits. But at the end of the statute it states that non of these shall be a criminal offense. Basically a guiding that if broken on a couple of occasions they could suspend your carry permit.

    Privately signs hold no legal bearing in Mo. I don't even look for them, except for when OC'ing. Obviously if they knew you were carrying they could ask you to leave, and if you won't it'd be trespassing. Otherwise, signs don't mean jack.

    Snip from Mo 571.030. 1

    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. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her permit, and, if applicable, endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry permit, and, if applicable, endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry permit for a period of three years.
    Last edited by Big Boy; 10-27-2014 at 02:03 AM.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Boy View Post
    Building wise there isn't much. Everything in the concealed carry part of the law states gov buildings, post offices, polling places etc. Are off limits. But at the end of the statute it states that non of these shall be a criminal offense. Basically a guiding that if broken on a couple of occasions they could suspend your carry permit.

    Privately signs hold no legal bearing in Mo. I don't even look for them, except for when OC'ing. Obviously if they knew you were carrying they could ask you to leave, and if you won't it'd be trespassing. Otherwise, signs don't mean jack.

    Snip from Mo 571.030. 1
    Thank you for the information.

    Let me ask a couple more questions:
    1) Who do the cops on the Metro/Metrolink work for?
    2) What is the public's perception of personal safety on Metro?

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Thank you for the information.

    Let me ask a couple more questions:
    1) Who do the cops on the Metro/Metrolink work for?
    2) What is the public's perception of personal safety on Metro?
    From Metro's website, FAQ:
    The safety and security of customers on the region’s public transit system are the highest priority of Metro. Metro employs uniformed, sworn Police Officers from St. Clair County, St. Louis County and St. Louis City to protect our customers using the region’s transit system. Undercover Police Officers are also employed to protect transit customers. In addition, Metro contracts with Securitas, an international security firm which staffs MetroLink platforms and trains, and is responsible for fare enforcement. ...
    As to ublic perception, in my opinion it depends on which stop. The N. Hanley Station can be a little rough sometimes, based on past events reported in the news. I don't use Metrolink very often and I have not had any issues when I have used Metrolink. Good means to get downtown. Folks who use it more than I will be better able to describe their views on personal safety while riding Metrolink.
    "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
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    From Metro's website, FAQ: As to ublic perception, in my opinion it depends on which stop. The N. Hanley Station can be a little rough sometimes, based on past events reported in the news. I don't use Metrolink very often and I have not had any issues when I have used Metrolink. Good means to get downtown. Folks who use it more than I will be better able to describe their views on personal safety while riding Metrolink.
    Excellent, thank you!

    Would you mind providing a link link to MO's preemption statute?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Excellent, thank you!

    Would you mind providing a link link to MO's preemption statute?
    Very first paragraph. http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/02100007501.html
    "Somebody ever tries to kill you, you try and kill em right back!" - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Firearms legislation preemption by general assembly, exceptions--limitation on civil recovery against firearms or ammunitions manufacturers, when, exception.
    21.750. 1. 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.

    2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

    3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243.

    4. The lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public is not an abnormally dangerous activity and does not constitute a public or private nuisance.

    5. No county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision nor the state shall bring suit or have any right to recover against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public. This subsection shall apply to any suit pending as of October 12, 2003, as well as any suit which may be brought in the future. Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall restrict the rights of individual citizens to recover for injury or death caused by the negligent or defective design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition.

    6. Nothing in this section shall prevent the state, a county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the state or such political subdivision.

    (L. 1984 H.B. 928 § 1, A.L. 2003 S.B. 13, A.L. 2007 S.B. 225)
    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."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Firearms legislation preemption by general assembly, exceptions--limitation on civil recovery against firearms or ammunitions manufacturers, when, exception.
    21.750. 1. 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.

    [truncated]
    That's actually the wording from the old website. The link I posted goes to the new site, which includes the wording from SB656 as well.
    "Somebody ever tries to kill you, you try and kill em right back!" - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Yes, it is, the new version is not yet in place.
    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."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I see the state statute changed on me with the bus thing. I hate it when they do that...

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I see the state statute changed on me with the bus thing. I hate it when they do that...
    Can you be more specific?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I hate it a lot when they change the state statutes? The statue change from carrying anything on a bus being illegal to carrying illegally on a bus being illegal. Don't know when and I don't really care. Since that statute is so far away from the rest of the weapons statutes, I don't normally review it for changes.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I hate it a lot when they change the state statutes? The statue change from carrying anything on a bus being illegal to carrying illegally on a bus being illegal. Don't know when and I don't really care. Since that statute is so far away from the rest of the weapons statutes, I don't normally review it for changes.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Exactly where? There are so many links flying around I don't know which one you're referring to.

    Would you please post a link to what you're referring to?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5780000305.HTM

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Okay, thanks.

    Now where is the "carrying illegally on a bus being illegal"?

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
  •