Just spoke with Lana Woolsey of Springfield Law Department. She stated that though SB 656's changes to state law do, in fact, supersede Springfield 82 (a) (1) (k), said state laws DO allow for a detainment to determine License/Permit status. Mrs. Woolsey has seen the video of the incident and has determined that a 15 minute detainment is perfectly acceptable for anyone open carrying in the park (the stop was initiated well before my video started. We'll have to wait for Suunshine Law disclosures to get cruiser dashcam data on full time.) I disagree. I am bouncing around ideas on how to proceed, but it looks as though the courts may be the most viable option for determining what is a "reasonable" amount of time for a detainment. I know that BB62 has requested training materials, and I look forward to perusing them. ANy thoughts on next steps?
Ms. Woolsey doesn't want to acknowledge Amendment 5/Article 1, Section 23 of the MO Constitution:
Before Amendment 5: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
After Amendment 5: 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.
Some things to note: 1) the removal of “concealed weapons” from the former A1, S23, and 2) “…the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement”.
That's her and Springfield's choice.
(the rest of this is written "to" BriKuz, but he's been in more than a few rodeos - it's just easier for me to write things "to" him than otherwise)
Your choice, and the choice of your fellow Missourians, is whether you want to:
A) Attempt to have a legal precedent established by carrying openly without giving notice, being willing to be cited and/or arrested, and following up with a lawsuit
B) Make it publicly known that, after being given notice, Springfield/the Park Police/whomever is not willing to go up against A5/A1, S23, and will not challenge you or you and your 100 closest friends having a meet 'n greet open carry picnic in a local park
Choice A is a winning strategy,
if you have the time, money and a willing attorney. After I and others are done communicating with Springfield they're not going to be able to claim in court that they had no idea that Amendment 5 existed, or that there was only the slightest of chances that a clear and comprehensive constitutional statement of RIGHTS more likely than not overrode statutory law to the contrary. In other words,
they've been put on notice, and they'll drop your case. They're not stupid - the last thing they want is a court decision saying what we all know to be true - their OC prohibition won't stand up to A5/A1, S23's terms like "unalienable" and strict scrutiny".
Regardless, when you file your lawsuit, steel yourself for 18 months to 2 years of legal wrangling and everything that goes with it. When you win, and I have no doubt you will, the word will get around quickly that those who have the resources to not back down will win. The question is "How many people does that apply to?" Will winning establish the precedent you're seeking? Could a broader win come out of action like I've described above? YES, I certainly think so, but it will take planning, time, money and a willing attorney.
Choice B is also a winning strategy, though it may not establish a
legal precedent. For a start, put the city & county on notice that you intend to have an open carry picnic. Do a records request for the guidance each party has received from the Attorney General on Amendment 5/Article 1, Section 23 - especially as it relates to the viability of local anti-OC laws. Write the Attorney General and let him know that you not only expect him to defend you if you or your fellows are charged ("...the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement..."), and also that you expect him to notify those in authority in Springfield and Greene County how they should conduct themselves with respect to individuals seemingly exercising rights under the MO Constitution, when no RAS exists of a violation of the law other than a local anti-OC ordinance.
Will the city harass or cite participants? I don't think they're that stupid. St. Louis wasn't.
Do this in city after city, and in the meanwhile, for those who insist/want a
legal precedent (which Ohio has proven will STILL be challenged), pass Missouri's version of Ohio's 9.68, and sue cities who refuse to read it:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68
Other choices may develop as people challenge the status quo, starting with putting various cities on notice. For example, depending on how Springfield and other cities respond to people doing so, suing for harassment may become more viable. A few more thoughts: 1) no smart city is going to be willing to run an
aware OCer through the system, and 2) a legislative fix is more likely than a judicial fix, and 3) nothing is going to change unless people challenge the status quo - municipalities in a position to intimidate will keep on doing so because it works, and 4) suing for being detained for an unreasonable amount of time is not a winning approach.
There is more that can be said, and other approaches that can be taken, but, since I have no doubt that Springfield is monitoring this thread, I'm not giving away everything in public!
My hope in writing all this up is that, even with A5/A1, S23, people recognize that moving things from where they stand means
winning a battle of intimidation. You may be intimidated at the thought of being cited/arrested, but cities are intimidated at the thought of a legal precedence against them being set, or of losing a case involving harassment.
They aren't going to put themselves in that position. Also, people in positions of power will not give it up willingly. You ask them to remove a law from their books, and some will say "Make me!" (recognize the intimidation?)
I'm convinced that the real battle is between gun-haters (some politicians and some members of the public) and enlightened people. As time progresses, most cops aren't going to care if you're open carrying, as long as it doesn't look like you're involved in criminal activity - but everything starts with people willing to challenge the status quo. I know BriKuz is.
My hope is that others will join him.
