Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: St. Louis Zoo Granted TRO against OC/CC Carry

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    St. Louis Zoo Granted TRO against OC/CC Carry

    BREAKING: Zoo Takes Legal Action to Block Gun Protesters
    KMOX’s Kevin Killeen reports that the Saint Louis Zoo has asked the court for a temporary restraining order to block an open-carry gun event set for 1:30 p.m. Saturday.

    The St. Louis police chief is scrambling to block the open-carry demonstration, saying that in his opinion, “more guns are never the answer.”
    ...

    St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson says Missouri has some of the most liberal gun laws in the country, and it may allow an open-carry protest to happen inside the zoo.

    Amendment 5, was passed in August 2014, establishes the “unalienable right of citizens to keep and bear arms, ammunition and accessories associated with the normal functioning of such arms, for the purpose of defense of one’s person, family, home and property.”
    http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/06/...-st-louis-zoo/

    Links to the TRO/Petition for TRO and to Petition for Permanent Injunction from above story (for convenience)

    https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.c...o-attached.pdf
    https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.c...d-petition.pdf

    Pretty broad challenge to almost everything I have read by those much more knowledgeable than I about RSMo 21.750 and RSMo 751 and their interaction. Looks like they are arguing that preemption mostly doesn't apply to them and that we can only OC where we can CC because preemption for OC over ordinance requires CC endorsement therefore that means can only OC where you can CC. Am I misreading this? And while the story addresses Amendment 5 I don't see it in the court filings. Throw it at the wall and see what sticks filing?
    Last edited by deepdiver; 06-12-2015 at 02:01 PM. Reason: Formatting for clarity
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    TRO language from Casenet:

    Temporary Restraining Order
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,ADJUDGED AND DECLARED AS FOLLOWS: DEFENDANT SMITH(AND ANYONE ACTING IN CONCERT WITH HIM OR WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ORDER) IS HEREBY TEMPORARILY RETAINED AND ENJOINED, BEGINNING UPON THE FILINF OF A $10.00 CASH/SURETY BOND FROM ENTERING UPON SAINT LOUIS ZOO PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR ANY OTHER WEAPON CAPABLE OF LETHAL USE(WHETHER THE WEAPON IS POSSESSED OPENLY OR CONCEALED). THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGH THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 22,2015 COMMENCING AT 1:30 PM IN DIV 31 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, OR AS OTHERWISE HEREAFTER ORDERED BY THE COURT SO ORDERED JUDGE JOAN L MORIARTY
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Story updated to reflect TRO being granted, etc.

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...536f6abbc.html
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 22,2015 COMMENCING AT 1:30 PM IN DIV 31 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS.

    Will there be counsel/attorney on both sides?
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    How does one go about getting an order like this if the the original posting is legal?
    If the original posting and policy are not legal, then upon what basis would a judge determine that legal conduct should be prohibited?
    It seems to me that there would be a presumption that the law should be followed unless there is risk to someone which is not adequately controlled by the existing law. There is no demonstrated no risk posed by this group to employees or visitors of the zoo. Thus, they will apparently violate the law for 10 more days with judicial consent with no real justification.

    I am watching closely since the Dallas Zoo is likely to follow the same course if we push the issue.

    Wouldn't it be a shame if the legislatures simply enact laws making the zoos follow the rules for all other public property?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 22,2015 COMMENCING AT 1:30 PM IN DIV 31 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS.

    Will there be counsel/attorney on both sides?
    According to Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 23, there should be someone on our side:

    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.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/Co...L/A010231.html

    I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    According to Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 23, there should be someone on our side:



    http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/Co...L/A010231.html

    I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
    +1
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    According to Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 23, there should be someone on our side:



    http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/Co...L/A010231.html

    I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
    This could get really interesting!
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    203
    I am writing an email and letter to the MO Attorney General. By current Constitutional Law, his office is REQUIRED to help us with this issue, as it is an infringement upon upon our rights as spelled out in the MO Constitution. I would suggest that others do the same...

    WE don't need to spend the money for private attorneys, our State has set forth that it is the State's job to prevent a subdivision from from infringing.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    This could get really interesting!
    I think that might be an understatement!!!!!

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by BriKuz View Post
    I am writing an email and letter to the MO Attorney General. By current Constitutional Law, his office is REQUIRED to help us with this issue, as it is an infringement upon upon our rights as spelled out in the MO Constitution. I would suggest that others do the same...

    WE don't need to spend the money for private attorneys, our State has set forth that it is the State's job to prevent a subdivision from from infringing.
    Please cite where AG is required to help you. The AG is the state's lawyer, not yours - that office does not give legal advice to citizens.
    AG OPINIONS

    By statute, state legislators, statewide elected officials, state department heads and county prosecuting attorneys are entitled to legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office. An Attorney General’s opinion is thus a written public document responding to a specific legal question asked by a public official. All opinions have been reviewed by the Opinions Section and represent the highest standards of research. An Attorney General’s opinion attempts to resolve questions of law as the author believes a court would decide the issue. Unlike a court, however, Attorney General opinions cannot decide factual disputes.
    https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    See the other article, the state is required to defend our 2A rights by our constitution.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Regular Member redhawk44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Wheatland, MO
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Please cite where AG is required to help you. The AG is the state's lawyer, not yours - that office does not give legal advice to citizens.
    AG OPINIONS

    By statute, state legislators, statewide elected officials, state department heads and county prosecuting attorneys are entitled to legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office. An Attorney General’s opinion is thus a written public document responding to a specific legal question asked by a public official. All opinions have been reviewed by the Opinions Section and represent the highest standards of research. An Attorney General’s opinion attempts to resolve questions of law as the author believes a court would decide the issue. Unlike a court, however, Attorney General opinions cannot decide factual disputes.
    https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions
    Which begs the question; Why didn't the Zoological officials solicit an opinion from the AG, when first contacted? I think we know the answer!

    "An Attorney General’s opinion is thus a written public document responding to a specific legal question asked by a public official".
    Last edited by redhawk44; 06-13-2015 at 03:15 PM.

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    See the other article, the state is required to defend our 2A rights by our constitution.
    I'm willing to learn.....show me the cite(s) - black letter law (statute) or court cases of record.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I'm willing to learn.....show me the cite(s) - black letter law (statute) or court cases of record.
    http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Righ..._(August_2014)

    The following is the changes to the Missouri Constitution in August of 2014

    Constitutional changes
    See also: Section 23, Article I, Missouri Constitution
    The measure amended Section 23 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution to read as:[1]

    Section 23. 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; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. 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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member redhawk44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Wheatland, MO
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by logunowner View Post
    http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Righ..._(August_2014)

    The following is the changes to the Missouri Constitution in August of 2014

    Constitutional changes
    See also: Section 23, Article I, Missouri Constitution
    The measure amended Section 23 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution to read as:[1]

    Section 23. 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; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. 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.
    Passed by over a 60 percent vote by the participating informed Missouri electorate.


    http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/Co...L/A010231.html

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I'm willing to learn.....show me the cite(s) - black letter law (statute) or court cases of record.
    Quote Originally Posted by logunowner View Post
    http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Righ..._(August_2014)

    The following is the changes to the Missouri Constitution in August of 2014

    Constitutional changes
    See also: Section 23, Article I, Missouri Constitution
    The measure amended Section 23 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution to read as:[1]

    Section 23. 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; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by redhawk44 View Post
    Passed by over a 60 percent vote by the participating informed Missouri electorate.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/Co...L/A010231.html
    Gentleman - I sincerely believe you are erroneously applying this to your Attorney General being required to defend you in court.......and that it not a valid cite. I asked for a statute (black letter law) and/or case law supporting your opinion.

    Carrying your opinion forward would then negate ever having to hire a private attorney to defend someone from legal use of a firearm as the AG/state would provide the defense. Good luck with that.

    How would such a court case read? The State of Missouri v. The State of Missouri
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Gentleman - I sincerely believe you are erroneously applying this to your Attorney General being required to defend you in court.......and that it not a valid cite. I asked for a statute (black letter law) and/or case law supporting your opinion.

    Carrying your opinion forward would then negate ever having to hire a private attorney to defend someone from legal use of a firearm as the AG/state would provide the defense. Good luck with that.

    How would such a court case read? The State of Missouri v. The State of Missouri
    The State of Missouri v The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District

    Whereas the The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District has infringed upon the preemption of the State of Missouri acting by and through the duly elected general assembly in the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, et al as codified in RSMo 21.750.1 and 21.750.2 and whereas The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District having been created under RSMo 184.350 and deriving its authority to pass and implement rules and regulations under RSMo 184.362 is not authorized under such authority to pass any ordinance and therefore cannot claim any exception to preemption under RSMo 21.750.3, and as such the infringement is blatant and egregious upon the authority of the State of Missouri acting by and through the general assembly and therefore the Attorney General of the State of Missouri does hereby ask that this court permanently enjoin and prohibit the The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District from implementing any rule or scheme which infringes upon said preemption including, but not limited to, removing any signage prohibiting any firearm or other weapon covered under RSMo 21.750 or RSMo 571, from threatening or actually causing removal or exclusion from zoo property of any citizen lawfully carrying such weapons and further to overturn the Temporary Restraining Order issued in St. Louis City Court against Jeff Smith, et al as well as rejecting in its entirety the corresponding Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction against such person(s) as each and all do or will violate RSMo 21.750 and RSMo 571.

    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. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, 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. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.


    I'm thinking it would go something like the above.

    IANAL and the above is only a conceptualization responding the Grapeshot's question. I make no claim that the manner or style as set out is sufficient, legal or proper under the local rules of any MO court so please do not read anything more into it than that and criticize based on it not meeting some court petitioning something or other.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Whew. Pretty good conceptualization there. I dont know if MO courts allow for citing of other states cases, but here in MI we had a similar deal with the Capitol Area District Library. The courts found that since the CADL is tax funded and was created by local units of govt, they fell under MI's preemption and they couldnt enforce their policy. The law you have seems to read the same way except for the "political subdivision" part. I can see them trying to argue that label.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    The State of Missouri v The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District

    Whereas the The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District has infringed upon the preemption of the State of Missouri acting by and through the duly elected general assembly in the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, et al as codified in RSMo 21.750.1 and 21.750.2 and whereas The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District having been created under RSMo 184.350 and deriving its authority to pass and implement rules and regulations under RSMo 184.362 is not authorized under such authority to pass any ordinance and therefore cannot claim any exception to preemption under RSMo 21.750.3, and as such the infringement is blatant and egregious upon the authority of the State of Missouri acting by and through the general assembly and therefore the Attorney General of the State of Missouri does hereby ask that this court permanently enjoin and prohibit the The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District from implementing any rule or scheme which infringes upon said preemption including, but not limited to, removing any signage prohibiting any firearm or other weapon covered under RSMo 21.750 or RSMo 571, from threatening or actually causing removal or exclusion from zoo property of any citizen lawfully carrying such weapons and further to overturn the Temporary Restraining Order issued in St. Louis City Court against Jeff Smith, et al as well as rejecting in its entirety the corresponding Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction against such person(s) as each and all do or will violate RSMo 21.750 and RSMo 571.

    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. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, 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. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.


    I'm thinking it would go something like the above.

    IANAL and the above is only a conceptualization responding the Grapeshot's question. I make no claim that the manner or style as set out is sufficient, legal or proper under the local rules of any MO court so please do not read anything more into it than that and criticize based on it not meeting some court petitioning something or other.
    On that level we are in complete agreement - the state and AG requiring municipalities, political subdivisions, etc to honor the preemption of gun laws/rules.

    Still that is not the AG acting as an individual's defense attorney.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    On that level we are in complete agreement - the state and AG requiring municipalities, political subdivisions, etc to honor the preemption of gun laws/rules.

    Still that is not the AG acting as an individual's defense attorney.
    You're a tough nut to crack......

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    Full story at the link


    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/06...ing-order.html



    The St. Louis Zoo has asked for, and Judge Joan Moriarty has issued, a temporary restraining order barring a Second Amendment activist from visiting the Zoo while armed. From Fox2now.com:

    ST. LOUIS (AP) – A judge is barring a gun-rights advocate from entering the St. Louis Zoo with a gun as he pledged to do this weekend.
    St. Louis Circuit Judge Joan Moriarty issued a temporary restraining order against 56-year-old Jeffry Smith of Cincinnati. It’s in effect until a hearing June 22.
    Smith planned to go armed to the St. Louis Zoo on Saturday afternoon to test the legality of the site’s firearms ban. Although Missouri law bars guns in gated areas of amusement parks, he questions whether the zoo fits that description as a public, taxpayer-supported place.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    On that level we are in complete agreement - the state and AG requiring municipalities, political subdivisions, etc to honor the preemption of gun laws/rules.

    Still that is not the AG acting as an individual's defense attorney.
    It's not acting as an individual's defense attorney regardless as the Zoo has sued for a permanent injection against Jeff Smith and everyone else and such injunctive relief violates preemption defense of which legal attack would fall to the AG both on behalf of the general assembly and on behalf of everyone else as cited previously. It doesn't argue that just Jeff Smith can't carry guns into the zoo. It argues that the zoo can make up any rules regarding firearms it wishes; that those rules rise to the level of statutes or ordinance; that that RSMo 21.750.3(2) is incorporated into RSMo 571 thereby limiting open carry to the same restrictions as concealed carry; that despite by statutory definition being a subdistrict of a district of the municipality of St. Louis they claim to have the same authority as enumerated political subdivisions in RSMo 571.107(6), of which they are not one of the enumerated, which section reads, "The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any other unit of government;"; that any location where school children often visit on field trips is a school zone and therefore prohibited for carry whether or not such fact is known or disclosed; that any location that preschool children may be present because of a preschool being located in the vicinity is a preschool zone and therefore prohibited for carry whether or not such fact is known or disclosed; any park or recreational area used for educating children and any surrounding park or wildlife areas adjacent are school/preschool districts and therefore off limit for carry; etc.

    To name just a few of the "turns the entire 2A rights and carry laws of MO on its head" matters in the Zoo's filing...
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by logunowner View Post
    You're a tough nut to crack......
    There is no intent to show dishonor to anyone for their opinion(s) and I do enjoy a thorough exchange of information - we all learn something in the process IMHO.....myself included.

    When the ashes and dust have finally settled, the most I hope for is that I be remembered as one of the good guys.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 06-14-2015 at 02:19 PM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    I appreciate the dialogue, Grapeshot. Sometimes the most enlightening conversations begin with, "Ok, I had a thought. Dismantle this argument....". It's kinda like debate club challenging, debating, dismantling and thereby improving each others arguments.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

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
  •