Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: City of Eureka bans open carry on gun stores properties??

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    13

    City of Eureka bans open carry on gun stores properties??

    While looking at the City of Eureka amended codes I came across this>
    "BILL NO. 2369 ORDINANCE NO. 2265
    AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
    TRANSPORTING OF FIREARMS
    WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen deem it appropriate to amend the Municipal Code with respect
    to the transporting of firearms.
    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF
    EUREKA, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
    SECTION 1:
    A new Section 15-13.1 of the Municipal Code of the City of Eureka is hereby enacted which shall
    read as follows:
    15-13.1 TRANSPORTING OF FIREARMS
    (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to openly carry a firearm, or any other weapon readily
    capable of lethal use, across property containing or parking lots serving a gun shop, ammunition
    shop, firing range or other business that sells or allows the use of firearms within the City of Eureka.

    Any such weapons shall be transported into such businesses in an appropriate case or storage unit
    or shall be fully concealed on their person if they have a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm.
    (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to forbid United States marshals, sheriffs,
    constables and their deputies, and any regular, special or ex officio police officer, or any other law
    enforcement officer of the United States, the state, the county or the city, or the owners or authorized
    employees of such establishments set forth in subsection (a) from wearing such weapons in an
    unconcealed state as shall be necessary in the performance of their duties or employment.
    (c) A violation of this section shall be punishable pursuant to General Penalty provisions as set
    forth in Section 1-7 of the Municipal Code.
    SECTION 2:
    The provisions contained herein shall remain in full force and effect in the event the City or the third
    party Municipal Code codification company the City engages makes non-substantive changes to the
    language herein contained or section numbers herein referenced.
    SECTION 3:
    All ordinances, parts of ordinances or provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Eureka in
    conflict with any provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
    SECTION 4:
    This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its date of passage and approval.
    PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE , 2013.
    (Original with signature on file)
    Kevin M. Coffey, Mayor"

    Is this in conflict with state pre-emption?

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by chiggerbyt View Post
    While looking at the City of Eureka amended codes I came across this>...

    Is this in conflict with state pre-emption?
    See 21.750.3...IANAL

    Also, send a e-mail to the honorable mayor with only two words...private property.
    "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

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Yeah, but only a little bit, as in only being a little bit pregnant.

    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.

    (2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:

    (a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;

    (b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;

    (c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and

    (d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.

    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.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-17-2015 at 11:55 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    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.

    (2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:

    (a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;

    (b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;

    (c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and

    (d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.

    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, A.L. 2014 S.B. 656)

    *Effective 10-10-14, see § 21.250. S.B. 656 was vetoed July 14, 2014. The veto was overridden on September 10, 2014.
    Relevant part highlighted.

    It appears that this City of Eureka ordnance is lawful.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Relevant part highlighted.

    It appears that this City of Eureka ordnance is lawful.
    That's the part I'm having trouble understanding. The city I believe also issues business licenses for any gun store operating in their jurisdiction.
    ??

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    Relevant part highlighted.

    It appears that this City of Eureka ordnance is lawful.
    Except subsection 2 does not allow the prohibition by those who have a permit. The actual ordinance doesn't seem to allow it by them, either.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    If you have a concealed carry endorsement they can pound sand. They are preempted under 21.750.1, .2, they'll claim the exception to 21.750.1, .2 under .3(1) to regulate open carry and then you'll draw their attention to .3(2) which is the exemption to the exception to preemption. If you do not have a concealed carry endorsement it would appear to be lawful unless someone wants to be an Amendment 5 test case through a violation.

    In other words, sticking with the statutes, yes they can have the ordinance but no, they can't enforce against someone with a concealed carry license/permit.

    This law is dated 2013, which is pre-SB636 so they probably just haven't updated to exempt those with a concealed carry endorsement since SB636 went into effect in Oct 2014.

    IANAL
    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
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    If you have a concealed carry endorsement they can pound sand......

    In other words, sticking with the statutes, yes they can have the ordinance but no, they can't enforce against someone with a concealed carry license/permit.

    IANAL
    After sifting this all out I see the exception for anyone with a CCL. Thank you all.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by chiggerbyt View Post
    After sifting this all out I see the exception for anyone with a CCL. Thank you all.
    But doesn't this violate the business owners right to allow or disallow open carry as they see fit on their commercial property?? This is a rather egregious infraction on property rights.

    But then again.. Didn't sb656 disallow the passing of any laws more strict then state law?? And would this be more strict then state law?? Not to mention this prevents the store owners from open carrying their own weapons on their own property.. I don't see this holding up very well in a court due to the violation of property owners rights to carry an arm of his choice on property owned by said owner(s).
    Last edited by Ezek; 06-18-2015 at 02:00 PM. Reason: Additional thoughts

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    But doesn't this violate the business owners right to allow or disallow open carry as they see fit on their commercial property?? This is a rather egregious infraction on property rights.

    But then again.. Didn't sb656 disallow the passing of any laws more strict then state law?? And would this be more strict then state law?? Not to mention this prevents the store owners from open carrying their own weapons on their own property.. I don't see this holding up very well in a court due to the violation of property owners rights to carry an arm of his choice on property owned by said owner(s).
    Any political subdivision that can pass an ordinance, can pass an ordinance against open carry without violating preemption. Anyone with a concealed carry endorsement, i.e. concealed carry permit/license, is exempt from an ordinance regulating open carry. So no, the ordinance, unless cited against someone with a concealed carry endorsement, does not violate preemption in RSMo 21.750.

    Does it infringe on private property owners without a CCW to carry on their own property. Yeah, it would seem to, but I'm not sure one could find a statutory exception to that issue as to OC. The statute was clearly crafted to comply with RSMo 571 as it specifically says CC is ok. But then none of us could carry OC on commercial property in a city with a no-OC ordinance pre-SB656 and at least there is now a CCW exemption. And this is specific to property with a commercial enterprise relating to firearms, not to a private residence. We may not like it, but I think they tried to tailor their biases to be compliant with the existing law at the time it was passed.

    Clearly it needs to be updated in light of changes to 21.750.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Any political subdivision that can pass an ordinance, can pass an ordinance against open carry without violating preemption. Anyone with a concealed carry endorsement, i.e. concealed carry permit/license, is exempt from an ordinance regulating open carry. So no, the ordinance, unless cited against someone with a concealed carry endorsement, does not violate preemption in RSMo 21.750.

    Does it infringe on private property owners without a CCW to carry on their own property. Yeah, it would seem to, but I'm not sure one could find a statutory exception to that issue as to OC. The statute was clearly crafted to comply with RSMo 571 as it specifically says CC is ok. But then none of us could carry OC on commercial property in a city with a no-OC ordinance pre-SB656 and at least there is now a CCW exemption. And this is specific to property with a commercial enterprise relating to firearms, not to a private residence. We may not like it, but I think they tried to tailor their biases to be compliant with the existing law at the time it was passed.

    Clearly it needs to be updated in light of changes to 21.750.
    it is still privately owned, and not owned by the city, hence why the business owner has to pay property taxes on said property, hence why city isn't taking care of property like mowing it's lawn and such.

    while it is commercial, and not residential, I'm not sure if the RSMO applies, as I believe the wording was private PROPERTY, not private RESIDENCE but I will have to re-read it. if it does say property though, they could be in a world of hurt...

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    it is still privately owned, and not owned by the city, hence why the business owner has to pay property taxes on said property, hence why city isn't taking care of property like mowing it's lawn and such.

    while it is commercial, and not residential, I'm not sure if the RSMO applies, as I believe the wording was private PROPERTY, not private RESIDENCE but I will have to re-read it. if it does say property though, they could be in a world of hurt...
    I'm lost as to which statute(s) you are referring. Please clarify.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    I'm lost as to which statute(s) you are referring. Please clarify.
    there are some statutes that allow open carry on private property I believe under the 571 somewhere. I could just be Kansas city municipal code though and i'm confusing it. which is likely. considering my brain is jumbled from finishing up a BMW engine R&R ( 23.7 hours of straight labor).

    btw.. I HATE BMW's

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    there are some statutes that allow open carry on private property I believe under the 571 somewhere. I could just be Kansas city municipal code though and i'm confusing it. which is likely. considering my brain is jumbled from finishing up a BMW engine R&R ( 23.7 hours of straight labor).

    btw.. I HATE BMW's
    Laff ... sorry that sucked so bad!

    If you find what you are referencing, please post as it for us. I also had a heckuva a week and am feeling too lazy and tired to research it myself.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Laff ... sorry that sucked so bad!

    If you find what you are referencing, please post as it for us. I also had a heckuva a week and am feeling too lazy and tired to research it myself.
    571.030 section 3 I think is what I was thinking of here is the wording as amended by SB5656

    3. Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply when the actor is transporting such weapons in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible or when such weapons are not readily accessible. Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person nineteen** years of age or older or eighteen years of age or older and a member of the United States Armed Forces, or honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces, transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event or club event.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    571.030 section 3 I think is what I was thinking of here is the wording as amended by SB5656

    3. Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply when the actor is transporting such weapons in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible or when such weapons are not readily accessible. Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person nineteen** years of age or older or eighteen years of age or older and a member of the United States Armed Forces, or honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces, transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event or club event.
    Here are my thoughts on that (IANAL) which is worth exactly as much as you paid for it.

    First: subdivision (1)
    571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

    (1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

    Then, "nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control" but I read that sentence to mean, grammatically:
    nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game
    [nor] is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control

    In other words, if you have an "exposed firearm or projectile weapon" while hunting you can also CC without a CCW or if someone is "in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control" and conceal carry without a CCW, both without violating 571.030.1(1). But both, in my interpretation of the statute, are specific to concealed carry.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Here are my thoughts on that (IANAL) which is worth exactly as much as you paid for it.

    First: subdivision (1)
    571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

    (1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

    Then, "nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control" but I read that sentence to mean, grammatically:
    nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game
    [nor] is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control

    In other words, if you have an "exposed firearm or projectile weapon" while hunting you can also CC without a CCW or if someone is "in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control" and conceal carry without a CCW, both without violating 571.030.1(1). But both, in my interpretation of the statute, are specific to concealed carry.


    I took it to mean you can have an exposed, OR concealed firearm on premises in which "actor" has control over. but that is merely my interpretation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •