571. 030 and .107

ok, no me and the owner of a bowling alley (and good friend and previous employer) were chatting in the bar and he was questioning me on the fact that you cannot carry while intoxicated.

i told him i believe you can as long as you do not "...use the weapon in a negligent/unlawful manner."
571.030 subsection 1 subdivision 5

now 571.107 subsection 1 subdivision 7 on its last line states "...nothing in this subdivision authorizes any individual who has a conceal permit to posess any firearm while intoxicated"


can someone try to clarify why those 2 laws dont conflict?

kylemoul said:

ok, no me and the owner of a bowling alley (and good friend and previous employer) were chatting in the bar and he was questioning me on the fact that you cannot carry while intoxicated.

i told him i believe you can as long as you do not "...use the weapon in a negligent/unlawful manner."
571.030 subsection 1 subdivision 5

now 571.107 subsection 1 subdivision 7 on its last line states "...nothing in this subdivision authorizes any individual who has a conceal permit to posess any firearm while intoxicated"


can someone try to clarify why those 2 laws dont conflict?

Click to expand...

It is no longer unlawful to merely possess a firearm in Missouri while you are intoxicated. 571.030.1.(5) was amended last year. You now not only have to be in possession while intoxicated, but, as you pointed out above, you also have to either "discharge" the firearm, or otherwise use it in a "negligent of unlawful" manner, before it becomes criminal.

As to 571.107.1.(7), there is no conflict with 571.030.1.(5) because 571.107.1.(7) does not specify any kind of prohibition or restriction on possession of a firearm while intoxicated, it simply points out that nothing in the provision specifically authorizes such an action.

As it stands right now, it is perfectly legal to be falling down drunk and in possession of a firearm in Missouri (provided that you are otherwise lawfully entitled to possess said firearm).

3 things have to happen and I mean ALL 3 things for it to be a crime. If only 2 of the 3 things happen, it is not a crime. ( yes, I forgot what 3 things and I'll look it up ) I remember reading it in my CCW class and it turned into a conversation.

Tony4310 said:

3 things have to happen and I mean ALL 3 things for it to be a crime. If only 2 of the 3 things happen, it is not a crime. ( yes, I forgot what 3 things and I'll look it up ) I remember reading it in my CCW class and it turned into a conversation.

Click to expand...

Those three things are:

1) The firearm has to be on your person and readily capable of lethal use (ie: ammunition present)
2) You have to be intoxicated
3) You have to discharge or use it in a negligent/unlawful manner

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

Click to expand...

Just looked it up lol,but thanks for posting it.

thats what i thought.

that 107 (7) kind of threw me off though

Are you serious??

So a man is drunk in public, and I mean hammered, and he has his pistol on a leg holster. As long as he doesn't unholster it, it's fine?!

This confuses me deeply...

If a man is drunk in public, and I mean hammered, and he has a pocket knife clipped to his pocket. As long as he doesn't stab anyone in the throat, it's fine?

If a man is drunk on a golf course (public), and I mean hammered, and he has a golf club in a golf bag. As long as he doesn't bash anyone's skull in, it's fine?

If a man is drunk at a softball tournament (public), and I mean hammered, and he has a softball bat in his hand. As long as he doesn't McGwire someone's head, it's fine?

Why should one dangerous item be treated any different from another when there has been no injury to anyone? (Unless you care to count the breaking of any public intoxication ordinance)

Unless you are "one of those" who believe firearms posess some strange magical property that make them inherently more "evil" than any other inanimate object?

DarenGlock23 said:

So a man is drunk in public, and I mean hammered, and he has his pistol on a leg holster. As long as he doesn't unholster it, it's fine?!

This confuses me deeply...

Click to expand...

Being intoxicated is not illegal. Likewise, simply possessing a firearm is not illegal either. Why should we arbitrarily outlaw them when the two happen simultaneously?

...

I'm not saying it should be illegal I just thought that it was. That's awesome.