Boycott List for St Louis and St Charles Counties

sohighlyunlikely said:

Well written Sir. I am fore warning you I may plagiarize and alter it to fit for use with other businesses in the future.

Doc

Click to expand...

No problem, I screwed up the wallet gun relationship and it can be cleaned up.

Know any artist whom could draw a pistol in a holster with an attached money clip? just something to illistrate the two are indeed connected was the thought.

art

LMTD said:

No problem, I screwed up the wallet gun relationship and it can be cleaned up.

Know any artist whom could draw a pistol in a holster with an attached money clip? just something to illustrate the two are indeed connected was the thought.

Click to expand...

here I put this together. I like it. If you want it converted to a black and white simple print style let me know.

Doc

Well I like it, but I think a revolver like a redhawk in a cowboy holster with that shrun and placed on the mid section of the holster works better.

As a gun snob you know I want a 1911 but in reality the cowboy gun is more familiar without the combat weapon reference the auto seems to give these days.

BTW can you save me a lot of search time and lonk me to the 2 mm shirt, I lost the link some how. I know it was a different service but now that the union crap is over and the military is gone I can again spend a little time on my own passions instead of works.

Superlite27 said:

According to RsMO, an establishment that receives 51% of its income from the sale of alcohol is considered a bar and we can't carry in one (without permission from the owner).

Therefore, if an establishment sells alcohol, but receives 51% of its income from things OTHER than alcohol, it is NOT a bar, and is merely a restaurant that serves alcohol, meaning we can carry there.

I guess, according to cshoff, (I personally don't really know and will have to read up on it. [links welcome]) establishments (bars) receiving over 51% of their revenue from the sale of alcohol cannot be open on Sunday.

Logical deduction leads to the conclusion that: If the place is open on Sundays, we can carry there.

I believe HotShots is open Sundays, hence: Not a bar. (Even though it appears very "barlike" to me.)

Click to expand...

But that doesn't really matter anyways if you have a CCW, right?

It doesn't authorize but it's not criminal, something along those lines.

Got a response from hotshots and discovered a problem with the Sunday sales logic.

311.089 indicates a 150k vs 60k sales ratio.

That is a 60/40 split meaning they can sell up to 60% of their gross in booze which would not meet the 51% controls in place for the concealed weapons laws.

I will post the reply mail when I get home tonight.

LMTD said:

Well I am not often finding myself in disagreement with the hoff but I am now.

There has been no provision restricting "bars" from selling "by the drink" since 1981 when the "blue law" was repealed but the laws are HUGE and I could be 100% wrong.

The liquor laws are about the only thing more confusing than the gun laws.

I am really trying to think on this and bars that sell no food are more rare than the past so I am not coming up with anything.

Have you reviewed the statutes or has Hoff? I have no problem with either word but I am blown away that hotshots would claim 51% in food. First off it is CHEAP food, second I have had several meetings there on the rock road location and have not noticed much of anyone eating.

Click to expand...

Laws regarding the sales of alcohol are not my area of expertise, I can tell you that right up front. The state regulates liquor sales in a number of ways. In addition, they regulate liquor sales in Kansas City and St. Louis City differently than they regulate liquor sales in the rest of the state. Add to that the fact that local jurisdictions are also allowed to regulate liquor sales, and it's anyone's guess as to what the law REALLY is.

My understanding is that, under RSMO 311.480, Sunday liquor sales (and sales between 1:30 - 6:00 am on weekdays) are generally prohibited without additional licenses and/or permits.

311.480. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person operating any premises where food, beverages or entertainment are sold or provided for compensation, who does not possess a license for the sale of intoxicating liquor, to permit the drinking or consumption of intoxicating liquor in the premises, without having a license as in this section provided.
.
.
.
3. The drinking or consumption of intoxicating liquor shall not be permitted in or upon the licensed premises by any person under twenty-one years of age, or by any other person between the hours of 1:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on any weekday, and between the hours of 1:30 a.m. Sunday and 6:00 a.m. Monday. Licenses issued hereunder shall be conditioned upon the observance of the provisions of this section and the regulations promulgated thereunder governing the conduct of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink. The provision of this section regulating the drinking or consumption of intoxicating liquor between certain hours and on Sunday shall apply also to premises licensed under this chapter to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink. In any incorporated city having a population of more than twenty thousand inhabitants, the board of aldermen, city council, or other proper authorities of incorporated cities may, in addition to the license fee required in this section, require a license fee not exceeding three hundred dollars per annum, payable to the incorporated cities, and provide for the collection thereof; make and enforce ordinances regulating the hours of consumption of intoxicating liquors on premises licensed hereunder, not inconsistent with the other provisions of this law, and provide penalties for the violation thereof. No person shall be granted a license hereunder unless such person is of good moral character and a qualified legal voter and a taxpaying citizen of the county, town, city or village, nor shall any corporation be granted a license hereunder unless the managing officer of such corporation is of good moral character and a qualified legal voter and taxpaying citizen of the county, town, city or village.

Click to expand...

Now in St. Louis City and Kansas city, the state has specified actual dollar amounts that a business must show in annual gross receipts, and a minimum portion of which must be from the sales of food, in order to qualify for a "by the drink" Sunday license. That statute is:

Sunday liquor sales by the drink, permitted when (St. Louis City, Kansas City).

311.089. Any establishment possessing or qualifying for a license to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink at retail in any city not within a county, any home rule city with more than four hundred thousand inhabitants and located in more than one county and if such establishment is also located in a resort area, convention trade area, or enterprise zone area, the establishment may apply for a Sunday by-the- drink license between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and midnight on Sunday. The business establishment's annual gross receipts for the year immediately preceding the application for the Sunday by-the-drink license shall not have been less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars of which at least sixty thousand dollars of such gross receipts is in nonalcoholic sales. Any new licensee possessing a license to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink at retail may apply for a temporary Sunday by-the-drink license and shall show a projection of annual gross receipts of not less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars of which at least sixty thousand dollars of such gross receipts is in nonalcoholic sales. The license fee for such Sunday by-the-drink license shall be six hundred dollars per year. The license fee shall be prorated for the period of the license based on the cost of the annual license for the establishment.

Click to expand...

I'd be lying if I said I knew any more about it than what I posted above. It, quite simply, isn't an area of law where I have done much study (never really had a need to). I do have two close acquaintances who own(ed) bars in St. Louis County and both of them told me that the reason they were never open on Sundays is because they didn't have enough income from food sales.

My response from hotshots

Rich


Thank-you for your concern in this matter. Let me clear the air on a few issues. I am an avid outdoorsman and responsible gun owner.

#1- The sign has been in place for many months> I am confused on why you believe the sign was recently erected?

#2- We erect those signs to be in compliance with a list that was issued by the State-I have pasted the list below. It is our understanding that if an establishment does not make up over 50% of there sales in food that the state prohibits firearms in the establishment.


Concealed firearms cannot be carried in or on posted private property and the following public places:
• Police stations without consent, correctional facilities, prisons and jails.
• Courthouses.
• Polling places on election day.
• Governmental meetings and portions of public buildings that prohibit carrying firearms by ordinance or regulation.
• Bars and lounges, or restaurants that derive less than 50 percent of income from the sale of food.
• Secure areas of airports or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.
• College or universities or any facilities owned by colleges or universities.
• Elementary or secondary schools without the permission of school officials or any child care facility without the permission of the manager.
• Riverboat gambling facilities.
• Buses or bus stations.
• Gated areas of amusement parks.
• Churches or other areas of worship without consent.
• Sports arenas or stadiums with a capacity of five thousand or more.
• Hospitals accessible by the public.
Unfortunately, until we are told otherwise, we will be adhering to the law issued by the state.


Thanks again for your feedback.

Matt Volmert
District Manager
Hotshots Sports Bar & Grill
mvolmert@hotshotsnet.com

Are you planning on writing him back and letting him know that he is wrong? Or do you believe it would be a waste of your time?

cshoff said:

Are you planning on writing him back and letting him know that he is wrong? Or do you believe it would be a waste of your time?

Click to expand...

i AM IN THE MIDDLE!


Seems he could well have closer to a 60/40 than a 50/50

I think perhaps they could be swayed but with everything else going on I am not sure I want to bother with it and just let them settle into their spot on the boycott list.

LMTD said:

i AM IN THE MIDDLE!


Seems he could well have closer to a 60/40 than a 50/50

I think perhaps they could be swayed but with everything else going on I am not sure I want to bother with it and just let them settle into their spot on the boycott list.

Click to expand...

I meant that he is wrong that the state "prohibits" carry in his establishment. Even a bar that makes 100% of their income off of the sale of liquor could allow concealed or openly carried firearms if they so choose. The state doesn't have anything to say about it. Not that I expect Hot Shots to change their policy, regardless.

cshoff said:

Not that I expect Hot Shots to change their policy, regardless.

Click to expand...

I might shoot him a note, but I expect nothing really and I am not going to patronize even the unposted location anymore. Seems some battles ain't worth fighting.

LOL like with Zak.

Z/x conveinence store on n hwy 94/first capitol

Posted

Little slow today so I took another shot at hotshots, will keep informed:

Hello Matt,

I am writing you to clarify a couple of points.

Your interpretation of Missouri weapons law are not accurate.

RSMO 311.089 would define the St Louis Sunday liquor by the drink standards of a minimum food sales of 40% which is loosely interpreted as “if they are open on Sunday, they are likely not in the 51/49% category. RSMO 571.107 addresses the 51/49% category and reads as number (7) and is further clarified within:

2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years. Upon conviction of charges arising from a citation issued pursuant to this subsection, the court shall notify the sheriff of the county which issued the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue. The sheriff shall suspend or revoke the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue shall issue a notice of such suspension or revocation of the concealed carry endorsement and take action to remove the concealed carry endorsement from the individual's driving record. The director of revenue shall notify the licensee that he or she must apply for a new license pursuant to chapter 302 which does not contain such endorsement. A concealed carry endorsement suspension pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall be reinstated at the time of the renewal of his or her driver's license. The notice issued by the department of revenue shall be mailed to the last known address shown on the individual's driving record. The notice is deemed received three days after mailing.

As you can see in the bold print, it is defined clearly that it is NOT prohibited, however denial and removal are remedies at the request of the proprietor and should one refuse and the police are summoned a citation may be issued.

I send you this regarding your choice in the matter. You are certainly welcome to CHOOSE to restrict, you however under no circumstances are REQUIRED to do so to be in compliance. We have a great deal of respect for our rights as well as others and will conform to your decisions as such.

I am sorry if I misrepresented the timing of the sign for the Dorsett road location, I should have noted that we just took notice of it a day before I sent the note. You do not have the location I frequented posted and the difference is the primary reason for the contact, we do not want to enter the other location with our firearms if it is your desire that we not do so. We are also clarifying that we consider our wallets an extension of our holsters and if the holster is emptied by request, the wallet will not empty either.

We have placed your facilities on the “do not patronize” list at this time and would very much like to remove it as your establishments are well known to have a positive atmosphere, reasonably priced food and beverages. All of the firearm carry laws that apply are covered under RSMO 571 and can be found at http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c571.htm for your own review should you choose to investigate and explore your error.

Thank you for responding and please feel free to grant me the privilege of sending the request for removal from the list, we would be happy to celebrate positive educational efforts at your establishments and it might have the impact needed to conduct our meetings at one of them monthly.

Thanks again for polite consideration,

Rich
From: Matt Volmert
<snipped>

Let us know what he responds back with. I'd be pretty shocked if he brought down the signs.

OC for ME said:

City of Maplewood?

Click to expand...

That's a given. I don't even have to put that on the list.

Doc

Chevy's in St. Charles can be added to this list. They even quote a statute number, 571.107 I believe, under their sign. Unfortunately, no one there has ever read, or at least understood, that statute.

cash50 said:

Chevy's in St. Charles can be added to this list. They even quote a statute number, 571.107 I believe, under their sign. Unfortunately, no one there has ever read, or at least understood, that statute.

Click to expand...

Cash,

Chevy's is now on the list.

Thanks
Doc

another business that will get no monies$$$ from us.

chevys sucks anyways. i would go in there just to talk to the manager.

Dear sir or madam,

It has been drawn to our attention that a recent change has happened at one of your locations. The St. Charles Store now has a “no firearms allowed” sign in the window. This is not consistent with the past or other Chevys locations and it has caused some confusion.

There are over 100,000 licensees firearms all of which have their fingerprints, an FBI background check and other qualifications through training and many of us work very hard to assure all persons rights are upheld.

We would like to know the company position so that we may respect your rights. If you do not want legally owned and carried firearms in your establishments please let us know. Please also understand that with that respect comes our resolve that we are indeed the good guys and while we will not bring ours, criminals have no concerns with signs or laws.

I am requesting this feed back as soon as possible as your posted facility is already, as of 5-3-2011, on our boycott list and I would like to remove it as soon as possible. Please also understand that we do this out of respect for your right to make that choice.

I hope to hear from you by the close of business 5-20-2011 as to the official position as we understand upon occasion a manager will make a change like this that is not the official position of the ownership. Most of us wear out firearms like our wallets and when our rights are restricted we avoid at all cost as we do not seek conflict but our wallets do not go where our rights are restricted by choice.

Your thoughts are appreciated and please understand this note and any response to it will indeed be publicly posted on several civil rights groups web spaces ranging from firearms to tea party topics. I would much rather be posting a retraction request than a company wide boycott, however that choice is yours and we will respect your decision either way.

Thank you,
Rich L.

P.S.

Your salsa sucks.