Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: OC legality in bar or while responsibly drinking

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    34

    OC legality in bar or while responsibly drinking

    First post here.

    An old friend was recently visiting Columbia, MO, where I live and he used to, so we decided to meet up at Flat Branch (a local micro-brewery/restaurant) on a Saturday afternoon. While I normally OC, I hadn't been to a bar in several years, and hadn't had a chance to check RSMO laws before I left, so I left it at home.

    On entering the restaurant/bar, I noticed a sign on the front door. (I don't remember the exact wording of the sign) It read something like, "In compliance with RSMO 571.094-25 (15) guns are prohibited." Like I said, I don't remember whether it said concealed, guns, weapons, or what exactly. Something about that sign struck me as wrong, so I memorised the RSMO # to look it up when I got home.

    I mentioned this to my friend, and told him, that I was pretty sure I could legally OC at this place, so long as I wasn't asked to leave. Were I asked to leave, and refused, the police could be called, and I would be issued a trespassing charge. Nothing more. He objected, saying he was positive that guns cannot be carried into any place that serves alcohol.

    Upon returning home, I found that RSMO 571.094 no longer is on the books, as I suspected. If I ever return there (probably the next time he is in town), I might point that out to the manager.

    Fast forward to tonight. I was picking up groceries at Gerbes supermarket on the way home from work tonight. After going through the checkout lane, I walked over to the CPD officer working security there at the time. I asked him if he had time for a possibly quick question, and ran everything past him.

    He checked his pocket sized RSMO book, and verified that 571.094 had been repealed. He agreed that I could not CCW at a buisiness that receives more than 50% of its earnings from alcohol, but confirmed that I could OC there, as long as they didn't ask me to leave, and so forth. "As long as you don't drink." he concluded.

    Herein lies my confusion: according to RSMO 571.030 it is a violation if: 5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, 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.
    but
    RSMO 571.107 says you cannot CCW 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.

    From what I see, it is Legal to OC wherever I want in this town, excluding parks, which I found from another member of this site, as long as there is not a sign prohibiting it, and/or the private business asks me to leave, etc. I may even have a few drinks while doing so, so long as I do nothing stupid.

    Am I reading things correctly?


    Final word: All of these questions are purely rhetorical. I do not currently plan to OC to any bars, as I do not frequent bars. 99% of the time, the only time I drink, is in the confides of my home, and my gun stays safely locked in a fingerprint scanning safe, accessible only by me, as I have three children ages 3-13 in the house. My wife asked me why I am so preoccupied by this, and I replied, "because I want to know what the laws are, so as not to unintentionally break them."

    Thank you for your time,
    Jeremy in Columbia, MO

  2. #2
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Jeremy - We recently had a fairly in-depth discussion about this very issue in a different thread. Take a look, read through it, and if you still have questions, just ask: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...idity%E2%80%9D

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    34
    I had skimmed through that thread shortly after joining this forum, but it was just "skimming". I will read through the entire thread tomorrow evening, but from what I've read in the first page, it appears the officer I was talking with tonight, who stated that I could OC there, "as long as I didn't drink." was wrong...

  4. #4
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by lordmorpheus View Post
    I had skimmed through that thread shortly after joining this forum, but it was just "skimming". I will read through the entire thread tomorrow evening, but from what I've read in the first page, it appears the officer I was talking with tonight, who stated that I could OC there, "as long as I didn't drink." was wrong...
    Yes. He was wrong.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Yes. He was wrong.
    I will make an attempt to politely point that out to him the next time I see him at the supermarket. I don't know him personally, and might ask one of the two officers that live up the street from me, the best method on doing this.

    Again, I just want to know what is legal, and what is not, even if I have no plans of even doing things that are legal.


    /quite pissed all guns and projectile weapons are prohibited in city parks here without a CCW and concealed, as the park I routinely take my 3 and 5 year to is commonly inhabited by thuggish types.

  6. #6
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by lordmorpheus View Post
    I will make an attempt to politely point that out to him the next time I see him at the supermarket. I don't know him personally, and might ask one of the two officers that live up the street from me, the best method on doing this.

    Again, I just want to know what is legal, and what is not, even if I have no plans of even doing things that are legal.


    /quite pissed all guns and projectile weapons are prohibited in city parks here without a CCW and concealed, as the park I routinely take my 3 and 5 year to is commonly inhabited by thuggish types.
    You might approach it as if you just found out yourself too. "You know, I was unaware that this law changed last year, but I recently found out that on August 28, 2010, the state changed the law that made it unlawful to be intoxicated while in possession of a firearm..............." Then hand him a printed copy of the statute as it used to read and as it now reads:

    As of August 27, 2010:

    Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

    571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
    .
    .
    .
    (5) Possesses or discharges a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated;


    As of August 28, 2010

    Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

    571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
    .
    .
    .
    (5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, 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

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Some additional debate has been added over time.

    Not playing lawyer here, but some additional information needs to be addressed.

    1. LEO's either are uninformed on the updated law or offer to ignore it.
    2. a great many HATE it, some with very good reason.

    The problem with the old law, it was broad and vague, it was almost impossible to determine what if anything was indeed legal. The new law was to clarify that, it did so but in some eyes remains incomplete due to wording etc.

    In other words one school of thought is that a prosecutor can still play with the new law as well due to the term "handle" which includes carry under a Webster definition.

    The key being, "you can beat the wrap but you can't beat the ride" aka a police officer may take action and arrest you for it and the pros might move forward with charges as case law does not exist to prevent as much. The truth of the matter is, it could cost you monies to get out of it and you might not have civil recourse against the arresting agency.

    The whole idea behind the law is that if you are indeed having a beer and you have your firearm on you, you are not insta felon. If you were to be silly and drink and drive but were under the limit but an officer saw a bulge or a weapon in the car, he could have filed felony charges even though he could not arrest for DUI as there were no standards. Now even if he could file the DUI, he can not file the felony weapons charge unless you are doing something stupid with the firearm.

    My point is, I would not be overly concerned about it, but I am not sure I would OC in public while drinking and take the chance that a poorly trained cop or even an angry control freak cop could indeed step beyond the scope he is supposed to when it MIGHT fall into a protectionism category where the city atty might proceed not for the win but indeed to prevent civil recourse on the matter and I would be out a ton of coin over the whole deal.

    If you are thinking you may participate in this activity, I HIGHLY suggest you get your information from a lawyer as there is much speculation regarding the situation I have presented and I see merit to both sides and only a qualified lawyer can give you qualified advice.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  8. #8
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    <snip>.....In other words one school of thought is that a prosecutor can still play with the new law as well due to the term "handle" which includes carry under a Webster definition.....<snip>
    Even in the event that a prosecutor or judge decided that the word "handle" is the same as "carry", under the current wording of the statute, it would still require that such "handling" or "carrying" was done in an "negligent or unlawful" manner. The act of "handling" or "carrying" itself, absent simultaneous negligent or unlawful behavior with the gun, would not be unlawful. And since the statute, as it is written, clearly defines that being "intoxicated" while in possession of the firearm is NOT negligent, it eliminates that as a being used as justification for an accusation of "negligence" by a prosecutor. With that in mind, I don't find the argument you presented to be one that would raise a valid concern.

    In a nutshell, you still have to do something stupid or careless with the gun before it becomes a problem. The state has clearly said that being intoxicated while in possession of a firearm, in and of itself, does NOT satisfy that requirement.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    With that in mind, I don't find the argument you presented to be one that would raise a valid concern.

    In a nutshell, you still have to do something stupid or careless with the gun before it becomes a problem. The state has clearly said that being intoxicated while in possession of a firearm, in and of itself, does NOT satisfy that requirement.


    It depends on how someone opts to deal with the phrase "valid concern" I suppose.

    My concern is not one of breaking the law, it is one of ABUSE of the law which has been clearly indicated by more than one officer whom has made comment on it across various forums. Knowing more than a few officers are upset about it and have the intent of writing reports to make it stick and a pros trying to make a name for themselves still might proceed, that is a huge hurdle that while I believe results in a "not guilty" every time, does not recoup the dollars required to get the not guilty and if the pros went forward, the officer is absolved as he certainly is not held to as high of a standard as the pros making civil litigation nearly impossible to recover the dollars spent.

    Pretty much every cop I have ever known hates dealing with drunks far more than any other category due to unpredictable behavior and massive increases in stupid actions. After a very few DUI arrest and accidents seeing senseless victims, they get pretty jaded.

    I personally see OC in a bar with a sign that clearly restricts weapons despite only applying to the CCW status, as a huge bad idea and an open invite to be harassed and even possibly moves to again change the law to define it further etc.

    The test case will cost bucks, if it has to head to appeal because of a poorly informed jury or bad call by a judge, it is gonna be a boat load, but I agree, a large portion of pros are going to skip it, it only is an issue if one decides to make a name for him self and stretch the law beyond intent, but such things do happen.

    Again, I am with you 100% it is a win, but the cost of that win and the ability to recover that cost are the questions and I think you would have a real hard time finding a lawyer for the recovery if the pros went to formal charges, it has been done before but more often than not it is tough shirt!
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  10. #10
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Municode and Sullivan

    Does anyone know if Municode or Sullivan Code has done a revision to the 'Carry while intoxicated" codes to make it so the local PDs can get the revision. I have yet to see any local PDs with the revised statue written into their codes. Because I get the feeling that cities won't be changing them (legal or not) till somebody tells them to.

    Doc

  11. #11
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    It depends on how someone opts to deal with the phrase "valid concern" I suppose.

    My concern is not one of breaking the law, it is one of ABUSE of the law which has been clearly indicated by more than one officer whom has made comment on it across various forums. Knowing more than a few officers are upset about it and have the intent of writing reports to make it stick and a pros trying to make a name for themselves still might proceed, that is a huge hurdle that while I believe results in a "not guilty" every time, does not recoup the dollars required to get the not guilty and if the pros went forward, the officer is absolved as he certainly is not held to as high of a standard as the pros making civil litigation nearly impossible to recover the dollars spent.

    Pretty much every cop I have ever known hates dealing with drunks far more than any other category due to unpredictable behavior and massive increases in stupid actions. After a very few DUI arrest and accidents seeing senseless victims, they get pretty jaded.

    I personally see OC in a bar with a sign that clearly restricts weapons despite only applying to the CCW status, as a huge bad idea and an open invite to be harassed and even possibly moves to again change the law to define it further etc.

    The test case will cost bucks, if it has to head to appeal because of a poorly informed jury or bad call by a judge, it is gonna be a boat load, but I agree, a large portion of pros are going to skip it, it only is an issue if one decides to make a name for him self and stretch the law beyond intent, but such things do happen.

    Again, I am with you 100% it is a win, but the cost of that win and the ability to recover that cost are the questions and I think you would have a real hard time finding a lawyer for the recovery if the pros went to formal charges, it has been done before but more often than not it is tough shirt!
    I agree in so far as ANY time you have to mount a defense, it can get very costly. IMO, there are plenty of other "trumped up" charges a local prosecutor would go after that he would have a much better chance of getting a conviction on, that makes this particular statute a very minor concern. In reality, Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest are the two most likely charges a "drunk" in possession of a firearm will probably face.

    As to carrying into a bar with the intention of having a few beers, that act fails the common sense test. Walking in with your firearm despite signage warning you that the bar owner doesn't want weapons in his/her bar also fails the common sense test.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    As to carrying into a bar with the intention of having a few beers, that act fails the common sense test. Walking in with your firearm despite signage warning you that the bar owner doesn't want weapons in his/her bar also fails the common sense test.

    I couldn't agree more, and even though I started this thread, I have no intention of carrying into this restaurant/bar location. My original questioning nature was in regards to the sign, that mentions a law that is no longer on the books, but that led me to a what/if question.

    I do remember reading the RSMO codes shorty after I purchased my gun (before August of 2010) and thought to myself, "Wow, strictly speaking, if I wanted to have a few drinks in my own home, I would have to give my gun to my next door neighbor until the alcohol is out of my system."

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by lordmorpheus View Post
    I do remember reading the RSMO codes shorty after I purchased my gun (before August of 2010) and thought to myself, "Wow, strictly speaking, if I wanted to have a few drinks in my own home, I would have to give my gun to my next door neighbor until the alcohol is out of my system."

    Yeah that was basically the problem with it, even locked in your safe they are in your possession and having a beer while bbq on the back deck was a debated position they could go after.

    Frankly I think they just liked it to toss on top of a DUI if weapons were about to increase the "felony arrest" aka crime prevention stats BS they like to tout when asking for more tax dollars.

    I am not a fan of drinking and firearms, I consider them separate hobbies myself. That really has little influence on my position as I use the same rule for carry as I do driving, 1 beer ok, second someone else gets the keys. A couple of nights ago we went to a restaurant and I had a frosty mug of mic ultra which was great on a 100 degree day, I had my ccw with me so I declined a refill. I MIGHT have done the same with OC but I doubt it and can almost say it will not happen at all.

    The cops are willing to break the rules and fool with you for OC, ad drinking to it in the MWG aka "drunk guy at bar with gun" they might REALLLLLY over react and I am not up for exploring that without regard for legality. I do not seek any interaction with them, I certainly do not want to up the stakes for them and I think that would be the case, hence my opinion it is very unwise. Choose a designated driver and carrier as well

    I understand you were not saying you would, I am simply saying I would not and I would personally recommend that no one do so and become the poster child for the next anti-gunner legislation push/
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  14. #14
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200

    Arrested Legal or NOT

    I sat down with a friend of the family which happens to be a police officer in Lake St. Louis.I was just curious about what he thought about the change of the law since Aug 2010 Concerning drinking and firearms and how it was no longer a FELONY.

    A short discussion started and I already found myself a little out gunned(NO pun intended) as I had not memorized the law concerning this and I live right down the street to I told him I would run home and get copies of the exact wording of the law as I didn’t want to misquote something.

    After I returned with copies we went out to smoke & continued with conversation. After being able to show him exactly what the current law said he wasn’t going change his view that if someone with a Open Carrying, CCW or Not and was intoxicated HE WOULD ARREST THEM and charge them. He also went on to say after much debate that the charges may not stick but, point is beyond him.

    It was also stated that if he couldn’t charge them with thatHe would use the “ALL INCLUSIVE"Disorderly Conduct” CHARGE as he put it.

    He made it very clear that most of the police he works with basically view open carrying as Disorderly Conduct “even if it is a right” but the moment that scares someone or if it offends, whatever word you want to use.Once they they get on scene.

    -------They call the police they can and most likely will get you with at least the disorderly conduct. If you lucky enough to be only charged with that.-------

    After reading so many of the horror stories about OC I will stick to using my CCW.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    I'd get a new friend.

  16. #16
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    I am merely pointing out how many of the police are mis-informed or just plain don't really care what the laws are. And that they will arrest you even wrongly because of there personal beleif's that drinking+guns are NOT tolerated even if its legal.

    I brought up the fact that wrongly arresting someone open's the department up to law suits and the response was something to the effect that the amount of times police are told they will have a lawsuit on there hands compared to the amount of time it actually happens they dont even seem to care if it opens it up for a lawsuit.

    All of which arrest & lawsuit we as OC & CCW carries will bare the brunt of the cost
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  17. #17
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724
    Mr Workman,
    I see you are back to try to cause fear or at least are so afraid of attempting to be a free man that you feel it is a must to spread this propaganda. Including myself I would say there are at least a dozen active OCers in St Charles county. We will start with the fact that that their is no "Disorderly Conduct Law" in Lake St Louis. So right of the bat you and your alleged friend sound a fool or fictitious. The closest thing to it is "Peace Disturbance",And none to my knowledge no OCers have received a charge of Disorderly Conduct. And I will show you why. Here is the law as it is written in Lake St Louis.

    A person commits the offense of peace disturbance if:

    1. He/she unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons by:

    a. Loud noise;

    b. Offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient;

    c. Threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out;

    d. Fighting; or

    e. Creating a noxious and offensive odor.

    Now notice. You must accomplish a disturbance in one of the 5 ways. If not you have not done the crime. Openly Carry with a CCW does not break any of these laws in Lake St Louis. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to write any law that is not well defined in it's intent.

    Doc

    On an excursion in Lake St Louis

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald Workman View Post
    I sat down with a friend of the family which happens to be a police officer in Lake St. Louis.

    It was also stated that if he couldn’t charge them with thatHe would use the “ALL INCLUSIVE"Disorderly Conduct” CHARGE as he put it.

    He made it very clear that most of the police he works with basically view open carrying as Disorderly Conduct “even if it is a right” but the moment that scares someone or if it offends, whatever word you want to use.Once they they get on scene.

    After reading so many of the horror stories about OC I will stick to using my CCW.
    Hmmmmm, I do not find this to be the case at all. Your "friend" is a single voice and one of the LSTL police officers owns Ultimate Defense range and gun shop in St. Peters, one of them came to the Olivette Chevys and I spoke with him, they are well aware that OC is LEGAL in Lake STL. I openly carry in Lake STL every single week including at a "crowded walmart" every weekend. The ONLY issue I have had there is one fatherly type of person in the paint department wanted to advise me that he had his CCW but that uncovered it was not legal, the smart phone and Sullivan corrected his error and a pleasant conversation ensued.

    If your friend were to decide to act upon his known illegal behavior, he may find himself in a heap of trouble as there are those of us who will indeed follow up and make him the next poster boy for police abuse.

    As far as your own position of sticking with CCW, there is nothing wrong with that, you paid for the privilege to hide your gun, hide it. (insert snide reminder comment from Doc lol)

    Seriously though Gerald, if you are not comfortable with OC then you should NOT do it, if approached by police you will likely get nervous and talk far more than you should etc. OC is not about manning up or any bull crap like that, it is simply an option some of us enjoy more than the hassle of ccw. Those of us doing it, talking about it, and promoting it are simply trying to educate others and bring about change so it is a choice EVERYONE can make without asshats like your friend trying to intimidate them out of doing it just because THEY say so.

    If you all live in Lake Stl and you would like to have some support on this matter, feel free to invite me over, I am 30 yards from LSTL as I type this and have no issue what so ever with letting him know such conduct is that of an asshat and a very poor representation of law enforcement. At best he was supposed to say "Man I really do not like it, I feel it makes the job harder, I would never do it, I think it makes you a target blather blather blather and then, BUT it is COMPLETELY LEGAL and as a LAW ENFORCEMENT officer I CAN NOT TAKE ACTION WITH A CITIZEN WHO HAS NOT BROKEN ANY LAWS.

    The Pacific meet up is tonight, if you want to meet others, my lovely maiden has to work so I can give you a ride over and talk about such things on the way if you like.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  19. #19
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    Mr, …………Unlikely,

    Yep I am back and your very much looking at this in the wrong way that I am in anyway attempting to spread propaganda. And I understand that they may very well be at least a dozen people open carrying in St. Charles County with has a population of around 360 thousand people.

    As to the comment about the “fool” and “fictitious friend” comment! I will give it to you the guy is certainly a fool for failing to know the relevant laws that he is suppose to be enforcing but also NO more foolish the police chief allowing such an officer’s under his command to patrol under such assumptions.

    The point that I posted this and that I was trying to make was this:

    If officers of any police department made contact with someone, during which time the officer was going to arrest for let’s say “Possession of a weapon while intoxicated” then the person was detained for suspicion of a crime having being committed placed in the police car at which time the officer starts to do paperwork searching for the correct violation/law broken code number and finds that no to be on the books anymore.

    So the officer rather than looking like a dumbass decides since I can’t write them up for that. Instead writes it up as “peace disturbance” or whatever else he could convince himself of. After all during the arrest stage it’s not about what the law is. It’s about what the officer believes it is.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald Workman View Post
    Mr, …………Unlikely,
    Save your keyboard. You have already been labeled an "anti" by the "King of OC". No need to argue about it now. Your done..... your in the club.

    Welcome.

  21. #21
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    LMTD

    I understand that this is not the case with some officers but it is with others. Now I have never been to the Ultimate Defense Range I have friends that shoot there but, I am away from home a lot due to work and my time at home has been limited.

    If Ultimate Defense is the range is the one I am thinking of that is pretty new out that direction then they police officer you are referring to if the range is off Turner Blvd. That same officer that owns the shop is the most likely the same one my friend of the Family said his “BUDDY” was opening a number of months back. I understand that you say he knows its legal to open carry but the question is really does he support it.& to that same thing applies to drinking & a firearm I understand that its not a good idea but like others on this form I don’t think that a beer is should be out of the question just because I choose to exercise my right to carry a firearm for self defense. I certainly don’t think that should make me a felon either, but with the admitted views of some it should.

    I also understand that people like Doc don’t seem to like the Idea of CCW and they prefer OC but I have no problem with CCW other than the fact that before OC was legal and CCWing I worried about the event that weapon was seen by someone when bent over or grabbed something off shelf at grocery store. And the possibility of trouble for brandishing or something as brandishing can have a very wide meaning.

    Though I never had any issues I figure if I am in an area that allows both OC and CCW the event that my shirt comes up for a second is no big deal.----if I am wrong in this thinking let me know

    Although doc likes the public to see he is carrying that’s fine because its not a crime and its his right in my personal opinion CCW is the way to go. You can go a thousand times and never have a problem but you could have a problem that once! Now look at why your carrying you carrying not because your going to have a problem 999 times your carrying because the 1 time could happen.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  22. #22
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    If were playing the name calling game and you have labeled me an anti- then all you who beleve it are some left wing democrats and should be in bed with obama and are seeking to destroy this country and the very things it was founed on!
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  23. #23
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Sooooo

    For the record. I support those who have gained and wish to use their state payed for and approved CCW privilege. I myself have one and use it it on occasion. For the record I do not consider either Mr Workman or Hagen as anti OC. As a matter of fact I am glad to see more acceptance of all thing OC from Mr Hagen. It is only the prevailing off record words of I will arrest you for what ever I want LEO attitude that is being replayed by Mr Workman that I find troubling. It is a threat that never seems to come to truth here in Missouri, and with that I have to file it under propaganda.
    I do not believe myself to be King of anything other than my own castle(my home).

    Doc.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    For the record. I support those who have gained and wish to use their state payed for and approved CCW privilege. I myself have one and use it it on occasion. For the record



    I do not consider either Mr Workman or Hagen as anti OC. As a matter of fact I am glad to see more acceptance of all thing OC from Mr Hagen. It is only the prevailing off record words of I will arrest you for what ever I want LEO attitude that is being replayed by Mr Workman that I find troubling. It is a threat that never seems to come to truth here in Missouri, and with that I have to file it under propaganda.
    I do not believe myself to be King of anything other than my own castle(my home).

    Doc.


    Damn, thanks for realizing I'm not against you. I acknowledge it and appreciate it.

    I didn't take Gerald's comments as "anti" . I feel he was simply explaining how maybe some LEO's are ill-informed and what he had heard from an officer, therefor passing on what he heard to all of us. I know you and some others OC there without trouble, so it's even more disturbing to me that the LEO said that .

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald Workman View Post
    I also understand that people like Doc don’t seem to like the Idea of CCW and they prefer OC but I have no problem with CCW other than the fact that before OC was legal and CCWing I worried about the event that weapon was seen by someone when bent over or grabbed something off shelf at grocery store. And the possibility of trouble for brandishing or something as brandishing can have a very wide meaning.
    Uhm, there is a huge error in your statement.

    OC has been LEGAL since before Missouri became a state and it was not until 1985 I believe that some anti stuck a provision into MO law that violates the state and US constitutions allowing municipalities to make it illegal and it has in fact changed for very very few locations. CCW was never legal per the inception of the MO constitution which excludes it as a right. In 2004 it became legal via a paid for privilege.

    Your friend is a bad LEO it sounds like, one that subscribes to "you can beat the wrap but you can't beat the ride" which means he will intentionally violate the very laws he swore to uphold and he should be punished for his criminal behavior. He also employs intimidation practices which came to light when you showed him where the law had changed and he clearly defined he would trump up something else and do whatever he wants, this is not the kind of person we want policing, it is the kind of person leaders like Hitler wanted policing.

    FYI walked out of Walfart with vacuum bags and crossed strong side to him in front of a LSTL cruiser that stopped for me to cross. He MIGHT not have seen the XD right above his hood with an extended mag, but he would have to be near blind since I had jean shorts and a white shirt on, I would think it would stick out in a serpa like a sore thumb, he just drove on through after I crossed.

    Comming to Pacific meet up tonight?
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

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
  •