• 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.

Video of the City of Troy MO Board of Aldermen Jun 29 2011 concerning Open Carry Bill

L

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Looks good. Glad to see some smart people in office. The only thing I noticed though, They said that carrying it unloaded would make it NOT "readily capable of lethal use". That is wrong. The Missouri courts have already said an unloaded gun is in fact readily capable of lethal use because bullets can be quickly interested. I know the Cape Girardeau case made mention of this differently, but that was not the issue at hand and an unloaded firearm openly carried was not challenged. Other cases that dealt with it regarding concealed carry and that phrase "readily capable of lethal use" said that carrying it unloaded is the same as it being loaded.
 
cshoff

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
lancers said:
Looks good. Glad to see some smart people in office. The only thing I noticed though, They said that carrying it unloaded would make it NOT "readily capable of lethal use". That is wrong. The Missouri courts have already said an unloaded gun is in fact readily capable of lethal use because bullets can be quickly interested. I know the Cape Girardeau case made mention of this differently, but that was not the issue at hand and an unloaded firearm openly carried was not challenged. Other cases that dealt with it regarding concealed carry and that phrase "readily capable of lethal use" said that carrying it unloaded is the same as it being loaded.
Click to expand...

That is not exactly true. It really all depends on where/how the ammunition is being carried, or if it is being carried at all. RSMO 571.030.3 provides a specific exemption to RSMO 571.030.1.(1) when the gun is "....in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible...".
 
L

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
cshoff said:
That is not exactly true. It really all depends on where/how the ammunition is being carried, or if it is being carried at all. RSMO 571.030.3 provides a specific exemption to RSMO 571.030.1.(1) when the gun is "....in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible...".
Click to expand...

I guess what I was saying, the MO courts have said that regardless of bullets, a "readily capable of lethal use" gun is one that functions and whether or not there are bullets in/near the gun doesn't matter for that part. If you bring a bullet from 10 miles away and put it in the gun and it fires, that gun was "readily capable of lethal use" before that bullet got near it.

That means that if if a municipality prohibits open carry of a firearm "readily capable of lethal use," an unloaded firearm falls into that category. Do you disagree with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top