Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Are public OC meetings legal in St Charles City?

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

    Are public OC meetings legal in St Charles City?

    As we have gained new OC-ers in the St Charles area I wanted to bring this ordinance into light. I have done quite a lot of OC in St Charles but I do not publicize meet ups because of the wording in this law. I may be misconstruing it. But believe it or not. If their is a gray area I tend to avoid putting myself in it. I am curios to know what your interpretation of this is. Here is the law in question from St Charles City.

    Doc

    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description, or to go into any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship, or into any school room or place where people are assembled for educational, political, literary or social purposes, or to any election precinct on any election day, or into any courtroom during the sitting of court, or into any other public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose other than for militia drill, or meetings called under militia law of this state, having upon or about his person, concealed or exposed, any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons or to, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit any such weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner, or to have any such weapon in his possession when intoxicated, or, directly or indirectly, sell or deliver, loan or barter to any minor any such weapon, without the consent of the parent or guardian of such minor; but nothing contained in this section shall apply to legally qualified sheriffs, police officers and other persons whose bona fide duty is to execute process, civil or criminal, make arrests, or aid in conserving the public peace, nor to persons traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state.

  2. #2
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Personally, I'm confused as hell reading that once. I'd prefer not to read it again. I'm sure many of St. Charles' finest share my sentiments.

    This thing is written like complete crap. Hard to understand, I wonder who wrote it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member lil_freak_66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mason, Michigan
    Posts
    1,811
    Just "assemble as a militia" to get around it?
    not a lawyer, dont take anything i say as legal advice.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Charles
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description, or to go into any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship, or into any school room or place where people are assembled for educational, political, literary or social purposes, or to any election precinct on any election day, or into any courtroom during the sitting of court, or into any other public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose other than for militia drill\
    This is horribly written. But, as far as I can tell it is NOT legal to hold an Open Carry event in St. Charles. Now, the question I have is what qualifies as "a public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose"?

    Would 5 people meeting up for dinner that happen to be OCing qualify? Would 2 people grabbing a quick bite qualify?

    Do I think we can get away with a meet-up? Yes.
    Do I think we should risk it? Not really. If we do get harassed by the cops, what kind of message is that sending to the sheeple?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    st charles states unlawful assembly is 5 or more people. i read it in an ordinance, i cant remember the ordinance number. someone may want to verify that for me

  6. #6
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Cool

    I don't know if any cops would know about this ordinance, much less what it means.

    But yea it may be taking a chance.

    We could always, I dunno....call and ask ze cops?????

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    St. Charles, Mo.
    Posts
    48
    What about the intoxication portion? Doesn't that conflict with the revised 571.030?

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Does Missouri have preemption? Also the constitution allows for peaceful assembly. I would consider the unconstitutionality of the ordinance.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Charles
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Does Missouri have preemption? Also the constitution allows for peaceful assembly. I would consider the unconstitutionality of the ordinance.
    We do NOT have state preemption for Open Carry laws. Hopefully we can get those passed in the next few years.

    If we have the permission of the restaurant to OC, would that be a way around the law?

  10. #10
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    Does Missouri have preemption? Also the constitution allows for peaceful assembly. I would consider the unconstitutionality of the ordinance.
    Lots of laws and ordinances are unconstitutional, that doesn't mean the cops won't come and arrest you for breaking one of them. You'd have to be prepared to spend and fight a potentially long legal battle.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description, or to go into any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship, or into any school room or place where people are assembled for educational, political, literary or social purposes, or to any election precinct on any election day, or into any courtroom during the sitting of court, or into any other public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose other than for militia drill, or meetings called under militia law of this state, having upon or about his person, concealed or exposed, any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife...
    Personally, I read this as "you can't carry concealed upon or about..." everything up to, and including the area in red. I see nothing concerning OC. Then comes the word "or". This is a big "or". After this "or" comes the paragraph in blue. Within this blue portion is the term "concealed or exposed". This applies to "meetings called under militia law of this state".

    So, as I read it: anything in the red area and before applies to concealed. I see nothing about OC. Anything concerning militia would fall into the area after the "or", in blue which addresses "concealed or exposed".

    Therefore, IMHO, the only OC not allowed by law in St. Charles City would be that done as a militia member.

    Anyone else read it this way?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Charles
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description, or to go into any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship, or into any school room or place where people are assembled for educational, political, literary or social purposes, or to any election precinct on any election day, or into any courtroom during the sitting of court, or into any other public assemblage of persons met for any lawful purpose other than for militia drill, or meetings called under militia law of this state, having upon or about his person, concealed or exposed, any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons or to, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit any such weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner, or to have any such weapon in his possession when intoxicated, or, directly or indirectly, sell or deliver, loan or barter to any minor any such weapon, without the consent of the parent or guardian of such minor; but nothing contained in this section shall apply to legally qualified sheriffs, police officers and other persons whose bona fide duty is to execute process, civil or criminal, make arrests, or aid in conserving the public peace, nor to persons traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state.
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Personally, I read this as "you can't carry concealed upon or about..." everything up to, and including the area in red. I see nothing concerning OC. Then comes the word "or". This is a big "or". After this "or" comes the paragraph in blue. Within this blue portion is the term "concealed or exposed". This applies to "meetings called under militia law of this state".

    So, as I read it: anything in the red area and before applies to concealed. I see nothing about OC. Anything concerning militia would fall into the area after the "or", in blue which addresses "concealed or exposed".

    Therefore, IMHO, the only OC not allowed by law in St. Charles City would be that done as a militia member.

    Anyone else read it this way?
    The big "or" comes right in the beginning. "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description, or to go into any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship, or"

    Think of them like addition signs.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenSTL View Post
    Think of them like addition signs.
    I disagree. In my opinion, "or" can be used to include (as you have pointed out) or distinguish between by excluding(as I have done in this very sentence).

    Isn't it possible for me to board an airplane to Albequerque or Kalamazoo?

    Does this mean I'm going to Albequerque + Kalamazoo at the same time?

    I agree that the "or"s in the first part are inclusive, but I believe the "or" I have mentioned distinguishes between, because the predicate has changed from "concealed" to "concealed or exposed".

    In a way, I believe this law is completely bat$#!T anyway because, if read correctly, even with the "or"s being inclusive,...

    It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description, or to go into any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship, or to go into any school room or place where people have assembled....
    ....seems to read it would be unlawful for anyone to carry concealed upon his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description....

    or

    ....It shall be unlawful for any person to go into any church where people have assembled for religious worship...

    or

    ...It shall be unlawful for any person to go into any school room or place where people are assembled...etc.

    If read correctly and verbatim, it seems to be unlawful to enter any place where people have assembled regardless of being armed or not.

    How are people supposed to assemble if it is illegal to go into a place where people are assembled?
    Last edited by Superlite27; 02-04-2011 at 01:30 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Folks, let me remind you of one important thing we keep forgetting at these thing. I was reminded by a Springfield officer that I've known for years on this one, came in trade after educating him to the "shall not be a crime" portion of 571 for CCW permit holders.

    3 or more people constitute a gang, public gatherings can be considered to fall within the State's gang statute. 578.421

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5780000421.htm

    Though you and I know this should not apply to public carry gatherings, it could be stretched into just that. So, we have to be cautious.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Here is the text:

    Missouri Revised Statutes
    Chapter 578
    Miscellaneous Offenses
    Section 578.421

    August 28, 2010




    Definitions.
    578.421. As used in sections 578.421 to 578.437, the following terms mean:

    (1) "Criminal street gang", any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in subdivision (2) of this section, which has a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, whose members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity;

    (2) "Pattern of criminal street gang activity", the commission, attempted commission, or solicitation of two or more of the following offenses, provided at least one of those offenses occurred after August 28, 1993, and the last of those offenses occurred within three years after a prior offense, and the offenses are committed on separate occasions, or by two or more persons:

    (a) Assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to cause serious physical injury, as provided in sections 565.050 and 565.060;

    (b) Robbery, arson and those offenses under chapter 569 which are related to robbery and arson;

    (c) Murder or manslaughter, as provided in sections 565.020 to 565.024;

    (d) Any violation of the provisions of chapter 195 which involves the distribution, delivery or manufacture of a substance prohibited by chapter 195;

    (e) Unlawful use of a weapon which is a felony pursuant to section 571.030;

    (f) Tampering with witnesses and victims, as provided in section 575.270.
    I have read this through several times, and after examining the first definition....

    (1) "Criminal street gang", any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in subdivision (2) of this section
    I encounter this phrase:

    having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in subdivision (2) of this section
    I then closely read these "criminal acts" enumerated in subdivision (2) and come to the conclusion that, even though we assemble in numbers greater that 3, we fail to meet the specifications enumerated within.

    Namely:

    1) None of us commit any of the crimes enumerated in subdivision (2).
    2) None of us have come together for the single purpose of commiting one of these specific acts.

    Therefore, we fail at meeting the criteria of the definition.

    Our "primary activities" usually consist of one or more of the following:

    1) Eating something
    2) Drinking coffee
    3) Shooting the bull
    4) Offering underhanded comments and snide remarks on each other's activities, appearance, or mannerisms.
    5) Taking pictures

    None of which can even be remotely confused with any criminal activities listed in subdivision (2).

    Nope. Not a gang. Not even close enough to "be stretched" as you suggest.

    BTW: How are we supposed to exercise this "caution", you reccommend we take? How, exactly, are we supposed to put this "caution" into action? I always practice situational awareness whenever I'm armed, but beyond this, I AM A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. I am extremely cautious and pay close attention to the laws in the areas that I OC. If anyone needs to exercise caution, it would be any agent acting in a authoritarian capacity.

    They should be cautious of my rights. Lawyers hurt.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 02-08-2011 at 04:34 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    i believe as long as you are going about you business, and are not in a group of people, you should be ok.

    as far as the gang...im sure that is something that would have to be explained to a leo. alot of numbers and subdivisions even for me

    (pertaining to the other st charles oc thread)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    went to schnucks to get lunch on my lunch hour. carried and no issues, but i was in and out in 5 minutes or so.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Which Schnucks?

    I've been in the Wentzville Shcnucks several times without incident. Other Schnucks might be different.

    Many hold a deep grudge against Schnucks for their activism ($25,000 to defeat MO CCW), and refuse to set foot in a Schnucks. I'm firmly in the other camp.

    They recently removed their "gun buster" signs and welcomed carriers by issuing a press release notifying the public of their change in firearms policy.

    Even though they were previously anti-gun, they have changed their policy, so why continue witholding our business? How does continuing to avoid Schnucks help our cause? All that does is show other businesses riding the fence that changing their policy wouldn't result in increased business. Bad idea.

    The best thing we can do is support businesses that change their policy to show others that changing their firearms policy can benefit them financially.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    one in st charles city by Droste Rd.

    they dont have any signs on the doors about any firearms.

    i dont see any issue shopping there. decisions in the past dont always make the future

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    maybe we should get a email from the chief or something.

    somethign just bothers me with the term exposed in their.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    The way it is worded. Leads me to think they could careless if you have a lawful CCW permit. That if you carry in their town they'll lock you up regardless. Granted it would be thrown out because state law says you can carry anywhere in the state minus the restricted places that state names.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    St Charles OC

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony4310 View Post
    The way it is worded. Leads me to think they could careless if you have a lawful CCW permit. That if you carry in their town they'll lock you up regardless. Granted it would be thrown out because state law says you can carry anywhere in the state minus the restricted places that state names.
    Actually. Last year I had probably spent more time OC in St Charles city than any other jurisdiction. After one video recorded 20min detention. Within a month I was told by the LEO that detained me that the PD did an OC legal training and it is now understood as legal and I will have no further problem with St Charles. I have no fear OCing in St Charles. Just doing meetings.

    Doc

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    thanks for the feedback. maybe i should stop worrying then!

  24. #24
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    Actually. Last year I had probably spent more time OC in St Charles city than any other jurisdiction. After one video recorded 20min detention. Within a month I was told by the LEO that detained me that the PD did an OC legal training and it is now understood as legal and I will have no further problem with St Charles. I have no fear OCing in St Charles. Just doing meetings.

    Doc
    That would be my only fear is they would say it was gang like activity.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    Mr. Moul: Mayor York forwarded your inquiry to my attention for a response. In response to your inquiry, a firearm may be carried by a person within the City in conformity with Missouri law. Please contact me if you have questions. Thank you.


    that was from the city attorney.

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
  •