• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Someone correct me if I am wrong...

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
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.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
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:

Marc

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
184
Location
St. Joseph, Missouri, USA
"That is correct. In fact, it isn't unlawful to carry in the establishment even without permission from the owner. "



can you please cite that cuz what i understood from the statute is you need permission from the owner, i'd really like to know which is correct
 

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
"That is correct. In fact, it isn't unlawful to carry in the establishment even without permission from the owner. "



can you please cite that cuz what i understood from the statute is you need permission from the owner, i'd really like to know which is correct

Sure, I can cite it:

571.107. 1. A concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No driver's license or nondriver's license containing a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
.
.
.
(7) Any establishment licensed to dispense intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, which portion is primarily devoted to that purpose, without the consent of the owner or manager. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the licensee of said establishment. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any bona fide restaurant open to the general public having dining facilities for not less than fifty persons and that receives at least fifty-one percent of its gross annual income from the dining facilities by the sale of food. This subdivision does not prohibit the possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the establishment and shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes any individual who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement to possess any firearm while intoxicated;
.
.
.
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.....<snip>
 
Last edited:

Marc

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
184
Location
St. Joseph, Missouri, USA
Ok then i missed that part in all the confusing legaleze jargon. Thank you for clearing that up. I never doubt what you say but i do like to see it for myself. Again thank you, that gives me more knowledge on the law which is always helpful.
 

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
Ok then i missed that part in all the confusing legaleze jargon. Thank you for clearing that up. I never doubt what you say but i do like to see it for myself. Again thank you, that gives me more knowledge on the law which is always helpful.

You are welcome. For the record, you should ALWAYS doubt what I (or anyone else) says in regards to these laws until you verify them for yourself. Good on you for asking for a cite.
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
Does this mean that St Charles need to make a change?

§ 134.03 DANGEROUS AND CONCEALED WEAPONS.
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.

('81 Code, § 20-74) Penalty, see § 10.99
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
St Charles City still says it is illegal

Email I recived from my councilman. (guess he never heard of spellcheck)

From: Ronald Stivison <Ronald.Stivison@stcharlescitymo.gov>
Subject: RE: Conflicting City Laws to the State Laws
Date: Friday, April 29, 2011, 9:16 PM


Thank you for your e-mail, as you can see by Ordinance 134.03 The first sentance starts out as "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed" and everything listed after that us in violation of law,
including "or to have any such weapon in his possession when INTOXICATED". Just to make sure I called the City attorney Mike Valenti and he affirmed it is against the law.
Just to let you know we have been re-codifying our Ordinances for about 3 months and will eventually get to all of them.
If I can be of further assistance please let me know.

Ron Stivison
Councilmember Ward 9
St. Charles City
ron.stivison@stcharlescitymo.gov
Home # 636-946-4030
Cell # 314-707-1000

I wrote back..

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your quick response.

I am no lawyer, nor do I prentend to be, but I will have to disagree with you and the City Attorney in the reading of the statues.

The way you say it reads, it is against the law to be intoxicated and carry a concealed weapon in my own home or private property. I see it as mere possession of a weapon, whether I conceal it or not, is against the law, " OR to have any such weapon in his possession when intoxicated" . I do agree, this is indeed what 134.03 says, but not 571.030.5, wherein lies the conflict.

Missouri State statue 571.030.5, does not distiguish how a weapon is carried, it clearly states "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". One must handle or use a firearm, by simply carrying or possessing a weapon intoxicated, is not against Missouri State law.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating a bunch of drunks carrying weapons, but if I am at home having a few beers and a policeman knocks at my door and I am "legally" intoxicated, this ordinance would allow him/her to arrest me just because I possess or carry a weapon, concealed or not.

I hope that you will continue to research this and get back to me.

I was going to foward this to the City Attorney, but I could not find his e-mail address, would you be so kind to give this to me?

You have stated that the council has been working on re-codifying our ordinances, I would be interested to know if there are changes in regards to firearms?

Thanks again for your time.
 
Last edited:

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
Email I recived from my councilman. (guess he never heard of spellcheck)

From: Ronald Stivison <Ronald.Stivison@stcharlescitymo.gov>
Subject: RE: Conflicting City Laws to the State Laws
Date: Friday, April 29, 2011, 9:16 PM


Thank you for your e-mail, as you can see by Ordinance 134.03 The first sentance starts out as "It shall be unlawful for any person to carry concealed" and everything listed after that us in violation of law,
including "or to have any such weapon in his possession when INTOXICATED". Just to make sure I called the City attorney Mike Valenti and he affirmed it is against the law.
Just to let you know we have been re-codifying our Ordinances for about 3 months and will eventually get to all of them.
If I can be of further assistance please let me know.

Ron Stivison
Councilmember Ward 9
St. Charles City
ron.stivison@stcharlescitymo.gov
Home # 636-946-4030
Cell # 314-707-1000

I wrote back..

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your quick response.

I am no lawyer, nor do I prentend to be, but I will have to disagree with you and the City Attorney in the reading of the statues.

The way you say it reads, it is against the law to be intoxicated and carry a concealed weapon in my own home or private property. I see it as mere possession of a weapon, whether I conceal it or not, is against the law, " OR to have any such weapon in his possession when intoxicated" . I do agree, this is indeed what 134.03 says, but not 571.030.5, wherein lies the conflict.

Missouri State statue 571.030.5, does not distiguish how a weapon is carried, it clearly states "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". One must handle or use a firearm, by simply carrying or possessing a weapon intoxicated, is not against Missouri State law.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating a bunch of drunks carrying weapons, but if I am at home having a few beers and a policeman knocks at my door and I am "legally" intoxicated, this ordinance would allow him/her to arrest me just because I possess or carry a weapon, concealed or not.

I hope that you will continue to research this and get back to me.

I was going to foward this to the City Attorney, but I could not find his e-mail address, would you be so kind to give this to me?

You have stated that the council has been working on re-codifying our ordinances, I would be interested to know if there are changes in regards to firearms?

Thanks again for your time.

Unfortunately for them, their ordinance is completely unenforceable. It does not comply with our preemption laws found in RSMO 21.750. Your councilman and city attorney are correct in their interpretation of their ordinance, but both of them fail to realize that it is null and void under state preemption laws.
 
Last edited:

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
View attachment St Charles City Explained.pdf


this is a explination of the ugly written warpons ordinance in st charles city from vichael the city attorney. excause the formatting because that is how it was sent to me.

i am going to upload attachment of the actual email. he bolded some words




Michael Valenti to me
show details Mar 24

fromMichael Valenti <Michael.Valenti@stcharlescitymo.gov>
toKyle Moul <kylemoul@gmail.com>

dateThu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:51 PM
subjectRE: Web Submission

hide details Mar 24

Mr. Moul: Please see below a dissection of the ordinance which you may use as a guide for analysis. I hope this helps you understand the ordinance.
134.03 DANGEROUS AND CONCEALED WEAPONS.
It shall be unlawful for any person:
1. to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description; [Section 571.101 RSMo (2003) made this lawful with a valid concealed carry endorsement]
2. to go into any:
a.church or place where people have assembled for religious worship,
b.school room or place where people are assembled for educational,political, literary or social purposes,
c.election precinct on any election day,
d.courtroom during the sitting of court,
e.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;
3. to, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner;
4. to have any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons in his possession when intoxicated; or
5. directly or indirectly, sell or deliver, loan or barter to any minor any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons, without the consent of the parent or guardian of such minor;
but nothing contained in this section shall apply to:
a. 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; or
b. persons traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state.


Mike

Note: The Missouri Bar Disciplinary Counsel requires all Missouri lawyers to notify all recipients of email that (1) e-mail communication is not a secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail that is sent to you or by you may be copied and held by various computers it passes through as it goes from me to your or vice versa, (3) persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing your computer or my computer or even some computers unconnected to either of us which the e-mail passed through. I am communicating to you via e-mail because you have consented to receive communications via this medium. If you change your mind and want future communication to be sent in a different fashion, please let me know AT ONCE.
 
Last edited:

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
View attachment 5792


this is a explination of the ugly written warpons ordinance in st charles city from vichael the city attorney. excause the formatting because that is how it was sent to me.

i am going to upload attachment of the actual email. he bolded some words




Michael Valenti to me
show details Mar 24

fromMichael Valenti <Michael.Valenti@stcharlescitymo.gov>
toKyle Moul <kylemoul@gmail.com>

dateThu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:51 PM
subjectRE: Web Submission

hide details Mar 24

Mr. Moul: Please see below a dissection of the ordinance which you may use as a guide for analysis. I hope this helps you understand the ordinance.
134.03 DANGEROUS AND CONCEALED WEAPONS.
It shall be unlawful for any person:
1. to carry concealed upon or about his person a dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind or description; [Section 571.101 RSMo (2003) made this lawful with a valid concealed carry endorsement]
2. to go into any:
a.church or place where people have assembled for religious worship,
b.school room or place where people are assembled for educational,political, literary or social purposes,
c.election precinct on any election day,
d.courtroom during the sitting of court,
e.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;
3. to, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner;
4. to have any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons in his possession when intoxicated; or
5. directly or indirectly, sell or deliver, loan or barter to any minor any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons, without the consent of the parent or guardian of such minor;
but nothing contained in this section shall apply to:
a. 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; or
b. persons traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state.


Mike

Note: The Missouri Bar Disciplinary Counsel requires all Missouri lawyers to notify all recipients of email that (1) e-mail communication is not a secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail that is sent to you or by you may be copied and held by various computers it passes through as it goes from me to your or vice versa, (3) persons not participating in our communication may intercept our communications by improperly accessing your computer or my computer or even some computers unconnected to either of us which the e-mail passed through. I am communicating to you via e-mail because you have consented to receive communications via this medium. If you change your mind and want future communication to be sent in a different fashion, please let me know AT ONCE.

Unfortunately, it is he who does not understand. If he had any idea what the language in RSMO 21.750 meant, he would realize that the ordinance he quoted is meaningless.
 

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
talking about number 2 subdivision E...it runs together with number 3, which states the normal "rude or threatning manor" as other use, as far as open carry
 

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
talking about number 2 subdivision E...it runs together with number 3, which states the normal "rude or threatning manor" as other use, as far as open carry

I thought we were still talking about the "intoxicated" ordinance posted above. My mistake.....
 

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
oh sorry misunderstanding...yes i agree the intoxicated part has no say so anymore.
i was referring to the opencarry part in general and how number 2 and all subdivision letters go along with number 3.

still bad writing on their part
 

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
"They" would get you for PI...there will be no way they would let this go..

Or maybe not...can't find a reg on PI.

OOPS.....No...they can't do that either

Found this...

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0670000305.HTM

Just so you know what 67-310...here you go..

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0670000310.HTM

Not they will not get you for something...and they will try I am sure.

I love Missouri..with the exception of MW,,,lol

Next up...disturbing the peace!

As you can see I am bored today...
 
Last edited:
Top