Close encounter of the unlawful detainment kind...

BB62 · Mar 17, 2015

Today I received acknowledgement from Springfield of my open records request, 8 days after my first communication with various authorities there. I modified the request to include materials referencing Amendment 5, SB656, and the subject of open carry until March 7, 2015.

Today I also followed up with the Sheriff and Parks Director, neither of whom I'd heard from regarding my e-mail which Springfield's police chief said he'd forwarded to to them. (As previously stated, a Major with the Sheriff's department had replied in a worthwhile manner, but not on the subject of my records request) I requested similar information from both of them, until March 7, 2015.

The Sheriff himself replied, thinking that the prior communication with the Major had taken care of the request. Based on other things he told me, I modified my request somewhat with regard to his department.

Not a peep has been heard from the Parks Director.

I'm not sure whether to interpret the lack of response as unprofessionalism, fear/dread, or arrogance. To me, the city and the parks director are just raising the stakes.

Speaking of stakes, I'm thinking an open carry picnic would be a great place to cook a steak. :monkey

We shall see.

BriKuz · Mar 17, 2015

Parks director is out of town this entire week... though not sure why he can't check his e-mail... i certainly do

BB62 · Mar 17, 2015

BriKuz said:
Parks director is out of town this entire week... though not sure why he can't check his e-mail... i certainly do

Yes, I forgot that - however the Chief indicated that he forwarded my e-mail to both he and the Sheriff last Tuesday - certainly enough time to at least acknowledge receipt of it.

In addition, it's my understanding that records requests must be "responded to" (though not filled) in three days (third item down): https://ago.mo.gov/missouri-law/sunshine-law/sunshine-law-faqs

Grapeshot · Mar 18, 2015

BB62 said:
Yes, I forgot that - however the Chief indicated that he forwarded my e-mail to both he and the Sheriff last Tuesday - certainly enough time to at least acknowledge receipt of it.

In addition, it's my understanding that records requests must be "responded to" (though not filled) in three days (third item down): https://ago.mo.gov/missouri-law/sunshine-law/sunshine-law-faqs

"Responded to" means information requested has been given or proper notice of delay with explanation stated. Unfortunately, I see no penalty for not fulfilling this statutory obligation.

Section 610.023.3, RSMo, requires that each request be responded to as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the third business day following the custodian of records’ receipt of the request. If access is not granted immediately, the custodian of records is required to explain the reason for the delay and the earliest date and time that the records will be available. Therefore, public governmental bodies are allowed to exceed the three days for production, but they are required to notify you of the delay and explain when they anticipate the records will be ready.
https://ago.mo.gov/missouri-law/sunshine-law/sunshine-law-faqs

OC for ME · Mar 18, 2015

BB62 said:
...

I'm not sure whether to interpret the lack of response as unprofessionalism, fear/dread, or arrogance. To me, the city and the parks director are just raising the stakes...

...or, trying to pass the buck back to the sheriff by ignoring it. If a bureaucrat, he is a bureaucrat, ignores something long enough, or so I'm told, the problem goes back to the dude who gave it to you in the first place.

BB62 · Mar 18, 2015

OC for ME said:
...or, trying to pass the buck back to the sheriff by ignoring it. If a bureaucrat, he is a bureaucrat, ignores something long enough, or so I'm told, the problem goes back to the dude who gave it to you in the first place.

(my bold)
The Sheriff's department, via the Major, has made it clear that the training of the Park Rangers is the responsibility of the Parks Director. I'll take him at his word for now - leaving it squarely in the Park Director's lap and the lap of Springfield City Council.

If the Parks Director is attempting to ignore it, it ain't gonna work, I guarantee you.

Of course, you are also welcome to throw in your own communications with the powers-that-be!

BB62 · Mar 18, 2015

Grapeshot said:
"Responded to" means information requested has been given or proper notice of delay with explanation stated. Unfortunately, I see no penalty for not fulfilling this statutory obligation...

A governmental body not holding another governmental body accountable?? Say it isn't so!!

Grapeshot · Mar 18, 2015

Grapeshot said:
"Responded to" means information requested has been given or proper notice of delay with explanation stated. Unfortunately, I see no penalty for not fulfilling this statutory obligation.

BB62 said:
A governmental body not holding another governmental body accountable?? Say it isn't so!!

You trimmed/snipped the statute quote and link.

My reference/reply was strictly directed to the requirements for responding to the originator of a FOIA submission under the state's Sunshine law. That would place the burden on the recipient of such a request.

No obligation is automatically placed on any 3rd party/buck catcher, unless (I think) he/she responds that the delay is because they have forwarded (reason satisfied) to the proper person. Then the process starts over again as if new (I think).

BB62 · Mar 18, 2015

Grapeshot said:
You trimmed/snipped the statute quote and link.

My reference/reply was strictly directed to the requirements for responding to the originator of a FOIA submission under the state's Sunshine law. That would place the burden on the recipient of such a request.

No obligation is automatically placed on any 3rd party/buck catcher, unless (I think) he/she responds that the delay is because they have forwarded (reason satisfied) to the proper person. Then the process starts over again as if new (I think).

I think we're talking past each other. I meant that the legislature put no penalty on governmental entities who didn't follow the law.

Grapeshot · Mar 18, 2015

BB62 said:
I think we're talking past each other. I meant that the legislature put no penalty on governmental entities who didn't follow the law.

That is the crux of the problem. The law has no teeth, not even a hand slap.

BB62 · Mar 18, 2015

Grapeshot said:
That is the crux of the problem. The law has no teeth, not even a hand slap.

True. However, because of the walk last year in St. Louis, they would be well-advised to recognize that I have the contact information of a number of members of the press - some of whom have already contacted me about this year's activities.

And then there's this article, out today, regarding the cavalier attitude of various Missouri governmental entities towards the Sunshine law: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/da...re_missouris_most_secretive_organizations.php

Although in this matter the ball's in Springfield's court, Missourians, and those who claim to have influence in Missouri politics, would be wise to recognize and push for various improvements in the law - one part being the "pay me" portion of it, another being just what you identified.

BB62 · Mar 25, 2015

Received earlier today from a paralegal who works for Sheriff Jim Arnott of Greene County:

"...We have researched your request for copies of any advisories, etc. out department has received from the County Prosecutor or Attorney General regarding Amendment 5/the revised Article 1, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution, open carry and SB656. The items you have requested do not exist, therefore, they cannot be provided. ..."

Methinks that the Attorney General hasn't sent any advisories on the above is that he doesn't want to let the cat out of the bag regarding what we already know: A5/A1, S23 clearly overrides statutory law like local OC bans (and a lot more).

The Truth · Mar 25, 2015

Drytchnath said:
This has been confusing the hell out of me.

United States v. Black asserts that lawful possession of a firearm can not be used as RAS. If I am legally carrying a firearm I do not have to cooperate with a LEO if they ask for my ID, even if the law says I do, for the LEO has not the RAS to bring me into a situation where I am required to hand over identification. If I am not under arrest then I am leaving, no I will not have a voluntary encounter with you.

Am I missing something here where this part of the law actually matters?

Not sure if anyone addressed this post because I stopped reading after I read it, but I'm pretty sure MO is in the 8th circuit. US vs. Black is a 4th circuit decision thus it is not binding in MO.

FriarJoe · Apr 2, 2015

Press is reporting this story.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/ne...en-carry-guns-okd-springfield-parks/70778814/

BB62 · Apr 2, 2015

FriarJoe said:
Press is reporting this story.

http://www.news-leader.com/story/ne...en-carry-guns-okd-springfield-parks/70778814/

Lots of FAIL there.

OC for ME · Apr 2, 2015

Actually, the fail is the citing of the wrong RSMo., 571.037 has to do with "flashing" your gat in Maplewood pre-OC w/a permit and not getting gigged for "OCing." It is not surprising that a "newspaper" would not do the basic research to, at the very least, match the RSMo (21.750) referred to by the wronged citizen to the lawful act being claimed by him.

Renegadez · Apr 3, 2015

I still think it is great Brian stood his ground with the LEO and now the change is made to allow open carry. There were alot of good comments below the article. Great Job Brian!

BB62 · Apr 3, 2015

Renegadez said:
I still think it is great Brian stood his ground with the LEO and now the change is made to allow open carry. There were alot of good comments below the article. Great Job Brian!

Correction: there was no change made to "allow" open carry - it was allowed the whole time.

What changed, via records requests Brian & I made, and contacts Brian and I made, is that the powers-that-be decided that while they would conveniently ignore constitutional law (A5/A1, S23), they wouldn't go up against statutory law (21.750, as amended by SB656).

How Brian and the locals choose to follow up is still developing, best I can tell.

<edited to add> The newspaper contact I made, then directed to Brian, simply couldn't be ignored by the public officials, so their acknowledgement of newfound "enlightenment" was due to the reporter's story.

Renegadez · Apr 3, 2015

You are correct BB62 I believe I should have said made to acknowledge current statue. Thanks RenZ

color of law · Apr 4, 2015

BriKuz said:
Link to Ranger Smith's Log

I have received the above. Note the ranger's recollection of events and the video tape don't quite match up.

I am stopping by the Parks office to get a cd of AV stuff this afternoon... more to come.

One thing I find interesting is that a Park Ranger can detain a citizen without filing an incident specific incident report... Is anyone familiar with the process that Greene County Deputy Sheriffs are required to take upon a forcible detainment?

(PS: There is NOTHING consensual about being lit up while driving)

stopped purple mazda FRN-8836 ohio...male was standing outtside of vehicle handgun on belt (open carry)..making sure i saw it the way he was standing...subject then proceeded to leave in his vehicle..upon stop..subject brian j kuzawa m/w oln a18228002 mo. advised me of his constitutioanl right to open carry and his wife advised she was recording incident...advised subject of muni ord. he became argumentative..subject did provide a current ccw permit from ohio (which Mo. Does recognize)..no wants, subject given warning and advised not ot open carry in city parks..subject advised that he would do it again because of his rights...mvr activated

Understand, the police are taught to use the word “argumentative” when a citizen stand on their rights.

If the police actually stated the truth of the interaction it would be glaringly apparent the cop had no grounds to enforce their fraudulent tactics.

I'm old enough to remember when cops were peace officers not law enforcement officers. And the definition of “law enforcement officer” is “tax collector.”

Close encounter of the unlawful detainment kind...

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Accomplished Advocate

Legendary Warrior

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

New member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate