• 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.

Amendment five application is far reaching ladies and gents

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Metrolink open carry next? Seriously considering it.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
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
 

Big Boy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
443
Location
STL, MO
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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?
 

Big Boy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
443
Location
STL, MO
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.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
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
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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!
 

Big Boy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
443
Location
STL, MO
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?
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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?
 

Big Boy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
443
Location
STL, MO
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:

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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?
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
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)
 

Oramac

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
572
Location
St Louis, Mo
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.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
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
 
Top