Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person twenty-one years of age or older transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control,
is this the part of the subdivision that exempts open carry in your vehicle? your passenger compartment is considered a dwelling correct?
My understanding, not the laws.
OC in a vehicle would mean it HAS to be visible from the outside (discussions of angles etc are forum debates, rule of thumb, visible from another vehicle) if not it is considered CCW. You might recall through the 70's when a gun rack in a pick up truck rear window was not uncommon at all.
The very reason the provision was put in was to allow persons to be safe from car jacking and road rage without regard for the permit status. The idea being you did NOT have to OC a firearm aka pistol in plain view on the dash, you could indeed conceal it without the requirement of a permit as long as you are legally able to have it.
You are not going to find an "OC permissive" law, no such things exist, they only restrict our rights, not grant permission. An OC pistol holstered on your side would indeed be a concealed weapoin inside a car which is regulated, hence the provision in the law not to restrict it.
i myself always thought your vehicle is your private property and you can as defined by the statue above now carry concealed
Quoted from SENATE BILLS NOS. 62 & 41
94TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:
(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;
(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.
2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury,[ rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson] or any forcible felony; or
(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.
3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.
well after i read it again, the sentence before my bold line almost looks like that only applies if you are hunting, and that is all.
just doesn't make sense that you cant have a firearm on your hip openly in your own vehicle. but then again laws aren't meant to make sense.
i know MO, in your 563 quote, does treat your vehicle like your home. that is for defense justification though.
I read RSMO 571.030 and RSMO 21.750.3 again, and now I can see how it only guarantees CC in MO.
For one, RSMO 21.750.3 mentions nothing therein should prohibit any ordinance which conforms exactly with 571.010 to 571.070, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms.
And 571.030.3 which makes exception of Subdivision 1 of Subsection 1, for transporting in your vehicle by persons 21 and over; and that subdivision says, "Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use;".
So, the exception being made for transport in vehicle is only for concealed weapons.
That's my understanding now.
...because those are the only ones prohibited by subdivision1 of subsection1.So, the exception being made for transport in vehicle is only for concealed weapons.
I see nothing within that mandates it must be concealed. It describes the firearm as "concealable", and specifically refers to exposed firearm or projectile weapons for the pursuit of game, but the only thing I see is that it voids the requirement of a permit if the weapon is "lawfully posessed".3. Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply when the actor is 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. Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person twenty-one years of age or older transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event.
The only thing forbidden by subsection one is carrying it concealed, whereas subparagraph 3 removes this prohibition for those who "lawfully posess" and are in a "continuous, peaceable journey".
In a nutshell:
571.030.1 = Carrying a concealed weapon in your car = illegal
571.030.3 = Exemption from 571.030.1 if legally posessed or if legally posessed in a continuous peaceable journey.
Nowhere do I see where openly carried firearms are forbidden as subsection 1 only addresses concealed firearms and subsection 3 removes that restriction for legally posessed ones.
Last edited by Superlite27; 03-23-2011 at 03:57 PM.
Sorry, I posted that during lunch and rushed to submit, which I don't like to do and find myself doing it again
But, the point I was trying to get across, from reading both 571.030 and 21.750: where OC is prohibited in a certain city, I do not see where there is a state exception for OC in a vehicle.
I read the definitions of concealable and my first thought was OK, it doesn't necessarily mean concealed. But upon reading it all again when this thread was posted, my interpretation changed, because subdivision 1, section 1 explicitly states "Carries concealed...". So, I now read the exception as only for concealed weapons.
According to RSMO 21.750.3, local ordinances cannot override that. But it also says, "Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance...or which regulates the open carrying of firearms...".
In summary, my interpretation is, if OC is legal in a particular city/county in MO, then it is legal in your vehicle too. If it is prohibited in that city, then state law does not guarantee you the legal right to OC in your vehicle.
What defines OC and CC in a vehicle, I do not know.
If I am not being clear on this, I will try to articulate it better at a later time. I just do not see where OC is explicitly granted in vehicle at state level, so I believe it is within the local municipalities right to prohibit OC in vehicles as well.
And castle law preempts local ordinances. A city cannot enforce an ordinance that forbids defense of your castle.
571.030.3 "Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1" (referring to unlawful use including concealed carry) "of this section do not apply when the actor ... is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession (your car is recognized as such), authority or control, or is traveling (probably by car) in a continuous journey peaceably through this state."
I believe that the law is quite clear that you can carry a weapon any way you feel like it inside of your vehicle. It is your "castle" and I have NEVER heard a cop contradict that position. I have told a couple of cops that I had a concealed weapon when pulled over because I thought I was required when I first came to Missouri. And I once had my Glock laying on the front seat when pulled over by a Missouri state trooper. None of them even batted an eye. I guarantee that if it was illegal, they would have done something about it. They acted like they could not care less. It just gets weird OUTSIDE of your car. They know the castle law and seem to support it, in my experience. I am not a lawyer, btw... seek legal advice from a professional...etc, etc...
Play it "safe" if you want. I will live like a sovereign being
Last edited by peterarthur; 03-23-2011 at 09:36 PM.
RSMO 571.030.3 specifically exempts concealable weapons being carried in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle. In what manner said concealable firearm must be carried is not specified. Whether or not it would provide you with legal protection against prosecution from a local OC ordinance is unknown, as far as I know. I've never heard of a case where this approach has been tested.
Thanks for the clarification.
I thought I was progressing in reading legal language though.
After re-reading a few more times, I was about to swing again, but no.
The relevant text in 570.030.3 starts with, "Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person twenty-one years of age or older transporting a concealable firearm..."
570.030.1. "A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:"
(1) "Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use;"
It only mentions "concealed" there, or does it? What does "or about" mean? Should it still be preceded by concealed?
I have to imagine that its meaning is concealed upon or concealed about, otherwise that would be interpreted as OC. Which would be bad and incorrect, as that would outlaw OC outside the vehicle in MO.
Thanks for sticking with me.
peterarthur, I'd probably feel a bit safer that I could get away with it if I was not wanting to OC on my motorcycle in a city that prohibits OC. Riding already attracts attention.
I may ride with my jacket covering it, then unzip and tuck or hook my strong side behind the holster. I'm a lefty and the zipper pull is on the right side though darn it. (That could possibly be construed as a pun )
to many laws. i need a beer.
good for me i only drive through fenton and almost never go into st louis city.