Just a few simple questions for the MO firearms law experts.
True or False?
During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to dislose he/she is armed.
During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to surrender his/her firearm.
If an officer does a lawful search of a vehicle he may seize any lawfully owned firearms.
If a citizens rights are violated by an officer, such as an unlawful entry into his/her vehicle or home, a citizen my use deadly force.
If an officer attempts an unlawful seizure of a citizen's firearm, whether on his person, vehicle, or home, a citizen may use deadly force.
I ask these questions on sheer curiosity and nothing more. I ask for truth as it is stated in MO law and how these actions may play out in court.
thanks all for your time and answers!
Some great questions, some not so great. This is a great example of why WE must know our rights. 2A, 4A, 5A in particular. Not a lawyer and not giving advice just pointing out some issues, but I do know my rights and have interesting views on 571 in Mo.
Rule #1 with EVERY LEO encounter: Any and all information gathered upon contact with a LEO is absolutely intended to gather evidence or illicit a criminal response. What YOU say is admissable in court against you, what the LEO says is hearsay and is inadmissable unless it has been recorded, submitted as evidence, and accepted as evidence by the court. There's a great youtube video on the 5th Amendment from a college professor, it might open some eyes and minds.
Disclosure of a firearm? No disclosure of the presence of a firearm is required in Missouri, however Missouri does require that you present your permit upon request IF/WHEN you are carrying.
Obligation to surrender? No, upon the firearm being removed from your person it has effectively been seized, no matter how short or long the period of time is.
Lawful search of a vehicle leading to subsequent seizure of firearm? First, for a vehicle search to occur the driver would need to give consent or the LEO would need a warrant. (Grant v. Arizona) So no, this is not legal as it violates 4A and may violate other laws. However there has yet to be a case to challenge the legality of such a seizure to obtain evidence. This is exactly why you do not give consent to a vehicle search for any reason what so ever and keep the LEO trapped within the ruling of Grant v. Arizona. Any LEO that tries to tell you they can, needs a wake up call on the issue, so make sure you immediately request a written copy from their department policy, municipal code, or Missouri Statute (which we know it's not in RSMO).
Rights violation = justification of deadly force? Absolutely not. Read justifications for the use of force in Missouri and you'll clearly see that there's a requirement for more than just a rights violation. The tricky part is when the LEO actually commits a crime by unlawfully entering your home, remember the LEO may have a lawful reason for being on your property and all it takes is telling them to leave if they do not have a warrant to enter. Again, it's important to NEVER allow a LEO into your home. What conversation needs to be had can be had outside your home, see Rule #1 above. Now if the LEO forces entry, then you're crossing the threshold of legality and you'd be taking your chances if you use force, this is especially important if the LEO does not have a warrant and you have told the LEO to leave (it's called trespassing). Now if a weapon is unlawfully utilized by a LEO during an unlawful entry, you again cross another threshold that has yet to see a legal challenge for the justification of deadly force.
Unlawful seizure of a firearm from an individual carrying is where it gets really dangerous, very legally sticky, and very challenging. Under RSMO 571, we have the right to use deadly force for self defense, this goes without question I hope for most of us. Where you run into problems is when the LEO unlawfully attempts to disarm you, unlawfully seize your firearm from your person, or points the muzzle your own weapon at you following such a disarming. Let's look at them from a LEO use of force continuum standpoint.
Attempt to disarm a LEO = deadly force assault
Attempt to seize a firearm from a LEO = deadly force assault
Pointing a muzzle of a firearm at a LEO = deadly force assault
Equal protection clause should provide us the same legal protections under the law that are forded to LEOs who respond with deadly force against a deadly force assault; if the private armed citizen isn't going to be protected then the LEO should not either.
So the question is this: If it is considered deadly force assault if these things are done to a LEO, why should the private armed citizen be any different? The answer is that the private armed citizen should not be treated any different, no matter who is engaged in the behavior. This would be especially important if the LEO disarms you anyway and points the muzzle of your own firearm at you. (unlawful use of deadly force/deadly force assault at that point)
I've run across this personally more than once now and I've only had a bad experience (wake up call for the LEO) just one time. When informed by the LEO that he needed to disarm me for "officer safety", I simply said "if you do not know how to work a fully loaded (whatever model firearm), then please leave it where it is for my safety and yours. Your attempt to disarm me means you will accept full responsibility for the loaded firearm and any injuries or damage that might occur from your own negligence; this is also considered deadly force assault if I attempted to disarm you. Should you point the muzzle of my own firearm at me, I will consider this to be the unlawful use of deadly force upon my person." This usually gets a LEO to either leave your firearm put with strict instructions for you not to touch it or become even more aggressive.
The self-defense portion of 571 is where it's quite muddy for this particular type of issue. Unfortunately, we've seen an increase of bone-headed LEO run-ins of late and it's just a matter of time before someone goes down an ugly road. None of us wants to shoot a LEO, nor do we want to be put in a position to have to even consider it as a survival option, but we do want to be secure in our persons, property, and effects as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Missouri Constitution.
Consensus: Using any kind of force against a LEO is not a smart decision.