Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Someone correct me if I am wrong...

  1. #1
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    OK.....I can go in a BAR with a weapon?

    I can carry a weapon in an establishment that serves alcohol, if I have permission from the owner.....Now if that is the case, can I be arrested for drinking and carrying a weapon as long as I am in the establishment?

    Just a thought, but if this is PRIVATE property....would the "intoxication with a weapon" have any merit?

    OK..I know I would be busted the minute I left the place, ( unless I left my weapon inside) but if the owner allows me there, he also has the right to tell the cops to get out and not harass me...

    Just thinking outloud...totally hypothetical ..

    Z
    Last edited by zekester; 04-18-2011 at 04:09 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Recently there was a Doctor that was DUI and they nailed him as he had a firearm. I can't remember where the link is.

  3. #3
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Been there done that...

    Still doesn't answer the question

    I was popped for a dui...and had my gun...luckely....I was charged with an UNLOADED weapon...which makes it NOT a felonly.....decent cop actually....

    Would go into the details, but not anything to do with this question....
    Last edited by zekester; 04-18-2011 at 04:07 PM.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Serves booze=ok, sorta 51% of sales is food/other you are good to go.
    Bars aka most revanue from booze, owner permission, your good to go.
    Firearm while drinking doing nothing stupid with firearm, your good to go.

    Laws have changed a lot. might want to refresh yourself on them, they change every year and it can be a pain to keep up.

    The old law was too vauge and did not define when someone was intoxicated etc so it was almost like drinking one beer with a gun was a huge crime, now as long as you do not brandish, fire, etc you are fine. It is also not the same factor in the case of self defense, however debating the outcome of a civil event following such a thing is only for internet lawyers, the rest already know it can go any way at all.

    I personally stick with the same rules for driving and firearms, 1 beer per hour is it, second beer ends it and those are very very rare for me. Older you get the less apealing booze is I guess lol

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    The law changed last year. It is now legal to be intoxicated and in possession of a firearm. Check 571.030.1 subsection 5. It states you have to be intoxicated AND handle the gun in a negligent manner. The mere possession of a gun while intoxicated is not a criminal offense. It even states it's not a crime to be intoxicated and act in self-defense.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM

  6. #6
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    You were always exempt from the provision that made it unlawful to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated (571.030.1.(5) ), if you were engaged in a lawful act of self defense. That hasn't changed.

    As to the original question:

    I can carry a weapon in an establishment that serves alcohol, if I have permission from the owner
    That is correct. In fact, it isn't unlawful to carry in the establishment even without permission from the owner.

    .....Now if that is the case, can I be arrested for drinking and carrying a weapon as long as I am in the establishment?
    No, not necessarily. It was never unlawful to be drinking and in possession of a firearm, regardless of where you were. It was only unlawful to be "intoxicated" (as defined in RSMO 571.010.(11) ) and in possession. The act of drinking an alcoholic beverage, in and of itself, NEVER satisfied the definition of "intoxicated".

    Just a thought, but if this is PRIVATE property....would the "intoxication with a weapon" have any merit?
    Prior to August 28, 2010, yes, it would have had merit. In fact, it is because of an incident that took place on private property that this law was changed. It was, quite simply, unlawful to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated unless you were engaged in a lawful act of self defense, regardless of where you happened to be at the time.

    OK..I know I would be busted the minute I left the place, ( unless I left my weapon inside) but if the owner allows me there, he also has the right to tell the cops to get out and not harass me...
    Actually, that is not the way it worked. The statute made no distinction as to there being any exemption if you were on private property. If an officer had reasonable belief that you were in a "substantially impaired mental or physical state due to the introduction of any substance into your body", you could be charged under RSMO 571.030.1.(5), which was a Felony charge. That said, an officer would have to have RAS to enter YOUR private property before he or she could make contact with you and evaluate your "intoxicated" state, but he or she WOULDN'T need RAS to enter a publicly accessible place such as a bar at which time he or she could casually observe your "intoxicated" state, which, combined with the presence of your firearm, would have been unlawful under the prior language in the statute.

    As has already been pointed out above, as of August 28, 2010, RSMO 571.030.1.(5) was amended. It is no longer unlawful to simply be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated. In addition to being intoxicated and in possession of the firearm, you must now also either discharge it or use it in a negligent or unlawful manner, before it is a crime.

  7. #7
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post

    Prior to August 28, 2010, yes, it would have had merit. In fact, it is because of an incident that took place on private property that this law was changed. It was, quite simply, unlawful to be in possession of a firearm while intoxicated unless you were engaged in a lawful act of self defense, regardless of where you happened to be at the time.
    Missouri vs Richard

    You still playing cops and robbers?

  8. #8
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    You pack heat in Lake St. Louis and get caught by the constable you will be charged with being intoxicated while packing heat.

    Yep, that is how the law will be enforced.
    Under what ordinance?

  9. #9
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    This is how it was explained for unlawful use of weapon. What is missing?....yepper, the rest of the statute. No big deal....right?

    You have been given fair warning....if you happen to go to Lake St. Louis for happy hour.
    That would never stand up in court. In fact, I seriously doubt that their prosecutor would even attempt to prosecute. The LSTL PD, on the other hand, would certainly be open to a costly civil suit.

  10. #10
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    No arguments there. Just means I will be giving LSTL a pass when it comes to my money. Don't want to get cuffed and stuffed based on a "interpretation" of the law. My list of cities on my boycott list continues to grow.
    No, that is not an misinterpretation of the statute, that is a blatant disregard for it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    That would never stand up in court. In fact, I seriously doubt that their prosecutor would even attempt to prosecute. The LSTL PD, on the other hand, would certainly be open to a costly civil suit.
    You know, this kinda stuff is tossed around here and on other gun boards, but nobody ever seems to pursue it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    You know, this kinda stuff is tossed around here and on other gun boards, but nobody ever seems to pursue it.
    Perhaps you can show us an example of a political subdivision in this state that has attempted to prosecute a person on charges that were in violation of RSMO 21.750? Only then will you have a valid point. In the meantime, I won't hold my breath as I seriously doubt you can. Like I mentioned above, a prosecutor with half of a brain in his head wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    I open carry in Lake St Louis and have had 0 issues in fact Saturday I was attending a charity event and needed a funky tie, my search to no avail included Joesph A Banks in Lake St Louis where I got the only comment which was positive from a lady whom said after asking to read the back of my 1mm shirt "you know, my late husband was active in 2a rights and I should carry that on for him"

    No other comments existed from banana republic, charlies, and the outdoor shop out there.

    My comments were directly proportional to the threats and turmoils that exist for one individual.

    I have no reason to believe the Lake St Louis police officers will operate outside the law nor am I aware of them participating in ANY questionable behaviors.

  14. #14
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    You know, this kinda stuff is tossed around here and on other gun boards, but nobody ever seems to pursue it.
    What do you mean nobody pursues it?

    Are you saying that no one is out open carrying while wasted and seeing if they get arrested for carrying while intoxicated?

    And then, is the "pursuit" some sort of lawsuit??

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by cash50 View Post
    What do you mean nobody pursues it?

    Are you saying that no one is out open carrying while wasted and seeing if they get arrested for carrying while intoxicated?

    And then, is the "pursuit" some sort of lawsuit??
    I was talking about lawsuits for when people get their rights violated.

  16. #16
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    I was talking about lawsuits for when people get their rights violated.
    Not sure what you are talking about. There are dozens upon dozens of lawsuits filed each year by people that have had their rights violated. As they relate to gun rights, two of the best known happened within the last few years and made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Not sure what you are talking about. There are dozens upon dozens of lawsuits filed each year by people that have had their rights violated. As they relate to gun rights, two of the best known happened within the last few years and made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
    Really ? Never heard about all that.

  18. #18
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    ok....

    So....Now comes the big question....Now that the law has changed...I can open carry a weapon.....and be drunk as sh*t...but be only charged with drunk as sh*t?....Now, I am not driving...just minding my own business,,,but drunk like no other but with a gun....I would never do this, but?

    To clarify...I am walking on 5th street in St Charles....drunk as hell...with an open weapon...legal?
    Last edited by zekester; 04-21-2011 at 07:06 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    So....Now comes the big question....Now that the law has changed...I can open carry a weapon.....and be drunk as sh*t...but be only charged with drunk as sh*t?....
    If you are "drunk in public" in violation of a local ordinance, then yes, you could be charged.

    Now, I am not driving...just minding my own business,,,but drunk like no other but with a gun....I would never do this, but?
    Simply being drunk and in possession of a firearm is no longer a crime. Depending on the circumstances, it is probably very stupid, but it is not unlawful.

    To clarify...I am walking on 5th street in St Charles....drunk as hell...with an open weapon...legal?
    Again, it would depend on the totality of the circumstances. Being in possession of the firearm, in and of itself, is legal, but if you are "drunk as hell" and causing any kind of disturbance or nuisance, you may well be in violation of some other law or ordinance.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    Now, I am not driving...just minding my own business,,,but drunk like no other but with a gun....I would never do this, but?
    You would be guilty of DWI , which would be a criminal offense, so you WOULD be charged with a firearms offense too I would think.

  21. #21
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    You would be guilty of DWI , which would be a criminal offense, so you WOULD be charged with a firearms offense too I would think.
    How would he be guilty of DWI when he clearly said, "....Now, I am not driving....." ?

    In addition, even if he was driving and was intoxicated, the mere possession of a firearm would not be an additional offense. He would still have to also either discharge it or do something negligent or unlawful with it before there would be grounds for an unlawful use of weapons charge.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    I'm sorry, I read it wrong. You are correct sir.

  23. #23
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    I'm sorry, I read it wrong. You are correct sir.
    Well, since I have never read anything wrong and have never made any other mistake, I don't forgive you......[/end sarcasm]

    LOL. Hey, it happens.

  24. #24
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665
    Hmmm...wonder if I can go back a few years and get that pesky little gun charge expunged and get my gun back?..
    Last edited by zekester; 04-22-2011 at 11:35 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    Hmmm...wonder if I can go back a few years and get that pesky little gun charge expunged and get my gun back?..
    Not likely. The law isn't retroactive.

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
  •