Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: What is Missouri's definition of "readily capable of lethal use"

  1. #1
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    What is Missouri's definition of "readily capable of lethal use"

    Does anyone know what the legal definition of "readily capable of lethal use" is per the state of Missouri? If it is just unloaded. That would open up almost all of Missouri to California styled OC. Spare me on the "It's not the preferred style of carry" stuff. I am just trying to give people options here.

    Doc

  2. #2
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    "Readily capable of lethal use" in regards to what statute? Missouri generally does NOT use "readily capable of lethal use" as a legal standard as it applies to a firearm in our statutes.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    571.030
    (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
    (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;
    (10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

    to me, readily capable of lethal use means it is ready to fire. i think this means at least a round is chambered.

    having your clip in, but not having a round chambered would not count.

    having to flip the safety and run the slide to chamber a round does not seem readily capable. this was added in the 28th mainly to deal with the use of alcohol and having a firearm.

  4. #4
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    571.030
    (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
    (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;
    (10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

    to me, readily capable of lethal use means it is ready to fire. i think this means at least a round is chambered.

    having your clip in, but not having a round chambered would not count.

    having to flip the safety and run the slide to chamber a round does not seem readily capable. this was added in the 28th mainly to deal with the use of alcohol and having a firearm.
    In the statutes you've quoted above, "readily capable of lethal use" is used as a legal standard for any other weapon, NOT a firearm. None of those statutes refer to a firearm that is in the condition of "readily capable of lethal use".

  5. #5
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    In the statutes you've quoted above, "readily capable of lethal use" is used as a legal standard for any other weapon, NOT a firearm. None of those statutes refer to a firearm that is in the condition of "readily capable of lethal use".
    you are right the OR does separate the firearm from the rest of the description. So I guess we are stuck there unless the states definition of firearm makes any reference to an unloaded gun as not being considered a firearm.

    Doc

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    number 5 states a firearm. is this still different?

  7. #7
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    you are right the OR does separate the firearm from the rest of the description. So I guess we are stuck there unless the states definition of firearm makes any reference to an unloaded gun as not being considered a firearm.

    Doc
    Well, as per RSMO 571.030.3, you are exempt from RSMO 571.030.1.(1) if you are "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.". In other words, it is normally "unlawful use of weapons" to carry a concealed firearm on or about your person without a valid CCW permit. However, if you are transporting such concealed firearm in "nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible" without a valid CCW permit, it is NOT considered "unlawful use of weapons". In no instance does either statute refer to a firearm in a condition of "readily capable of lethal use".

    I hope this explanation doesn't confuse the issue even more.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Joplin
    Posts
    7
    seems to me, as long as you dont present your weapon in an angry or threating manner, everything is good

  9. #9
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    number 5 states a firearm. is this still different?
    Yes. In SD(5), the language specifically refers to a "projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use". In other words, the statute specifies two DIFFERENT weapons:

    Weapon #1 - A firearm

    Weapon #2 - A projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    cant weapon 2 also describe as weapon 1 also?

  11. #11
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by jeepsnfish View Post
    seems to me, as long as you dont present your weapon in an angry or threating manner, everything is good
    No, there are still other things you cannot do with the weapon. For example, you can't carry a concealed firearm on or about your person without a valid CCW permit unless you fall under one of the exceptions (21 or over in the passenger compartment of your motor vehicle, in your dwelling or on property you own or have control over, while hunting and also in possession of an exposed projectile weapon, etc). And you can't do that regardless of whether or not you present your weapon in an angry or threatening manner in the presence of one or more people. If you did, you would actually be guilty of two violations, RSMO 571.030.1.(1) and RSMO 571.030.1.(4), and they are both felony charges.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    hmm...

    i can tell you if i was a lawyer i would be pulling my hair out. i already am lol

  13. #13
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    cant weapon 2 also describe as weapon 1 also?
    No. The definitions of the two weapons are entirely different. A "projectile weapon" is specifically NOT a firearm:

    (8) "Firearm", any weapon that is designed or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
    .
    .
    .
    (15) "Projectile weapon", any bow, crossbow, pellet gun, slingshot or other weapon that is not a firearm, which is capable of expelling a projectile that could inflict serious physical injury or death by striking or piercing a person;
    Last edited by cshoff; 01-19-2011 at 09:23 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    you are right the OR does separate the firearm from the rest of the description. So I guess we are stuck there unless the states definition of firearm makes any reference to an unloaded gun as not being considered a firearm.

    Doc
    I would have to disagree, the or does not separate the firearm from the "readily capable of lethal use." My reasoning is strictly grammatical. Or is a conjunction, it serves to offer a choice or include a separate but equal subject depending on context. In this context, as there is no comma to separate the two subjects they are presented as equal subjects to the "readily capable of lethal use" clause. IMO of course.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  15. #15
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    I would have to disagree, the or does not separate the firearm from the "readily capable of lethal use." My reasoning is strictly grammatical. Or is a conjunction, it serves to offer a choice or include a separate but equal subject depending on context. In this context, as there is no comma to separate the two subjects they are presented as equal subjects to the "readily capable of lethal use" clause. IMO of course.
    That would be a valid argument in regards to RSMO 571.030.1.(5), though as it relates to that statute, it doesn't really make much difference because of the additional qualifiers that must be present in order to constitute a criminal act. In regards to the other statutes, specifically RSMO 571.030.1.(1), (8), and (10), there is a distinct separation between a "firearm", and "any other weapon readily capable of lethal use".

  16. #16
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    That would be a valid argument in regards to RSMO 571.030.1.(5), though as it relates to that statute, it doesn't really make much difference because of the additional qualifiers that must be present in order to constitute a criminal act. In regards to the other statutes, specifically RSMO 571.030.1.(1), (8), and (10), there is a distinct separation between a "firearm", and "any other weapon readily capable of lethal use".
    I agree, the other qualifiers kind of make it a moot point. However, in respect to 8 and 10, though there is a clear separation of the two subjects the phrase "any other" implies inclusion in this context.

    Analyzed: The firearm is considered a weapon readily capable of lethal use and other weapons also capable of lethal use are included in the following...
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  17. #17
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    However, though the wording is debatable, lets just assume it does apply to firearms, is there any case or background on how the legal system defines "readily capable of lethal use"

    It wouldn't be hard for someone to argue that simply having a magazine in the gun would make it readily capable of lethal use as the speed and ease of reloading or racking has been used to argue mag. cap. cases.
    Last edited by ChiangShih; 01-20-2011 at 01:10 AM.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  18. #18
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724
    I brought up the issue to try to at least see if "Cali Carry" would be state wide legal here in MO. As that the state gives little restrictions but the local cities do. It is the city code that has to be dealt with. Below is the type of the commonly found local ordinances regarding weapons.

    Doc

    OVERLAND MO
    SECTION 220.225: WEAPONS -- CARRYING CONCEALED -- OTHER UNLAWFUL USE
    A. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons if he/she knowingly:

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

    2. Discharges or shoots a firearm within the City limits;

    3. Possesses a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated;

    4. Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

    5. Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

  19. #19
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    I brought up the issue to try to at least see if "Cali Carry" would be state wide legal here in MO. As that the state gives little restrictions but the local cities do. It is the city code that has to be dealt with. Below is the type of the commonly found local ordinances regarding weapons.

    Doc

    OVERLAND MO
    SECTION 220.225: WEAPONS -- CARRYING CONCEALED -- OTHER UNLAWFUL USE
    A. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons if he/she knowingly:

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

    2. Discharges or shoots a firearm within the City limits;

    3. Possesses a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated;

    4. Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

    5. Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.
    That is interesting and disturbing to consider; however, if one has a CCW this should preempt an ordinance like this, correct?
    Last edited by ChiangShih; 01-20-2011 at 01:45 AM.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  20. #20
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    That is interesting and disturbing to consider; however, if one has a CCW this should preempt an ordinance like this, correct?
    A CCW would over ride any local ordinance in reference to conceal carry but wouldn't assist in overriding any laws that covered an Openly Carried firearm. unless the local ordinance gave it that power as well, and some do but not all. Overland MO has a written exemption subparagraph (1) of SECTION 220.225 but not (4). Keeping OC illegal even with a CCW. I am hoping they will write it better when ever they get to bringing it up to par with state codes. Here is Overland's CCW exemption clause.

    E. Subparagraph (1) of Subsection (A) of this Section shall not apply to any person who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement by the Missouri Director of Revenue under Sections 571.101 to 571.121, RSMo., or who has been issued a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another State or political subdivision of another State and who is abiding by the terms of that permit or endorsement. This provision does not allow the possession of a concealed firearm in a manner that would violate Overland City Code Section 220.226

  21. #21
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    I agree, the other qualifiers kind of make it a moot point. However, in respect to 8 and 10, though there is a clear separation of the two subjects the phrase "any other" implies inclusion in this context.

    Analyzed: The firearm is considered a weapon readily capable of lethal use and other weapons also capable of lethal use are included in the following...
    Actually, in Subdivision (10), there is no inclusion at all. The statute specifically refers to a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded. It then goes on to say, in addition to the loaded/unloaded firearm, "any other weapon readily capable of lethal use". Since we all know that a unloaded firearm could hardly be considered "readily capable of lethal use", I think it's pretty safe to say that our legislators view a firearm, even in it's unloaded form, to be a completely different animal than "any other weapon readily capable of lethal use", at least as it applies to this particular statute.

  22. #22
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Actually, in Subdivision (10), there is no inclusion at all. The statute specifically refers to a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded. It then goes on to say, in addition to the loaded/unloaded firearm, "any other weapon readily capable of lethal use". Since we all know that a unloaded firearm could hardly be considered "readily capable of lethal use", I think it's pretty safe to say that our legislators view a firearm, even in it's unloaded form, to be a completely different animal than "any other weapon readily capable of lethal use", at least as it applies to this particular statute.
    Well, either way you look at it the language isn't very carry friendly and that's never a good thing.
    Last edited by ChiangShih; 01-20-2011 at 08:12 PM.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    571.030
    (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
    (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;
    (10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

    to me, readily capable of lethal use means it is ready to fire. i think this means at least a round is chambered.

    having your clip in, but not having a round chambered would not count.

    having to flip the safety and run the slide to chamber a round does not seem readily capable. this was added in the 28th mainly to deal with the use of alcohol and having a firearm.
    +1, it's also part of the "peaceable journey law" in Missouri. Why peaceable journey hasn't been repealed based on the Castle Doctrine makes me wonder. But then again, many of our current politicians in Missouri had or have no idea that in 1984 the municipalities were given the authority to regulate open carry, far earlier than when concealed carry was enacted. Even in 1984, the regulation of open carry would have been a violation of 2A...why it hasn't been challenged up to this point scares the heck out of me, but a bill to change that is coming and will hopefully pass.

    Doc, who is over your district in Missouri?
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 01-24-2011 at 11:03 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Yes. In SD(5), the language specifically refers to a "projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use". In other words, the statute specifies two DIFFERENT weapons:

    Weapon #1 - A firearm

    Weapon #2 - A projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use.
    Quote Originally Posted by kylemoul View Post
    cant weapon 2 also describe as weapon 1 also?
    It can, but #2 covers airsoft, NERF guns, paintball guns, BB guns, crossbows, sling shots, Atlatl, etc. Basically the latter is a catch-all for anything not defined as a "weapon" by Missouri Statute. I know some of those sound very ridiculous, but there have been municipalities that have used that to outlaw things like NERF guns claiming the Statute says they can, when all the while their agenda is to just be as anti-gun as possible.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 01-24-2011 at 11:06 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    <snip>.....Why peaceable journey hasn't been repealed based on the Castle Doctrine makes me wonder....<snip>
    Because the Castle Doctrine has no bearing whatsoever on transporting firearms in a vehicle. The Castle Doctrine is only relevant to where you may use deadly force in defense of yourself or others. It does not change, in any way, where or how you may transport a firearm.

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
  •