What are your thoughts?

What are somethings that you would like to see happen with Open Carry and concealed Carry in the state of Missouri?

For example: i would like to see the state change allowing to open carry or conceal carry into and on school grounds.

So what about you?

mobodyguard said:

What are somethings that you would like to see happen with Open Carry and concealed Carry in the state of Missouri?

For example: i would like to see the state change allowing to open carry or conceal carry into and on school grounds.

So what about you?

Click to expand...

It's already not a crime to carry on school premises in Missouri if you possess a Missouri CCW endorsement. Without the endorsement, on the other hand, you are violating state AND federal law.

cshoff said:

It's already not a crime to carry on school premises in Missouri if you possess a Missouri CCW endorsement. Without the endorsement, on the other hand, you are violating state AND federal law.

Click to expand...

True but doesnt that only apply to u having it in ur car not on ur person

mobodyguard said:

True but doesnt that only apply to u having it in ur car not on ur person

Click to expand...

No. If you have a valid MO endorsement, it applies anywhere on school premises in MO, whether the concealed firearm is in your car, or on your person.

Just so we're clear, it is definitely illegal to take a gun into a school, look at RSMo 571.107.1.(10) You can have it in your car with a CCW endorsement, but not without one, unless it's not functioning, unloaded, or not readily accessible RSMo 571.030.1.(10) and 571.030.3 If you have a CCW and take it out of the car, or brandish it, hilarity will not ensue.

1. Statewide preemption for OC.
2. Require all facilities where CC is disallowed in RSMo 571.107 to be posted.
3. Give the law some teeth in dealing with localities without conforming OC and CC codes (Gladstone MO, I'm looking at you...)

Oddly enough, I don't necessarily have a problem with requiring training for CCW endorsement. It's nice to know that the people carrying concealed have had at least some training in how to use a gun, and the laws constraining it's use. I would like to see the fees to the county sheriff reduced, and the MSHP providing the background checks for free.

I like KCgunfan's list. If I may add my own little wish (though it probably will never happen) would be something similar to Swiss ammunition practices for their militia. For say CCW holders, in the interest of the safety of all citizens, one would want all people who carry guns to have plenty of practice and range time with their gun. This would mean a lot of range time for individuals who have CCWs or firearms safety permits. It would allow them to master their firearm and be accurate and efficient if they ever had to use it. However, ammo is expensive, so my solution would be, for the benefit for everyone, would be to subsidize ammunition costs for card holders. Some percentage off or provision of handgun ammunition, per month, or even a volunteer state run class every so often with provided ammunition, practice shooting, and refresh safety course. Volunteer of course.

But I'm dreaming and tired of paying for ammo.

I love your idea Chiang. That would be nice. I always appreciate more training, and it does get costly.

There is one more thing I'd like to see. If we don't get Constitutional Carry (which I doubt highly we will), and if we don't get OC for CC endorsement with preemption (which I'm slightly more hopeful for), then I would really like to have a resource to say which communities do/don't permit OC, with links to their codes. And, to have it updated as codes change.

Heck, I've got the desire and the skills to write the website for it. It would take less than a week. The problem is that i don't have the time or initiative to read all of the county and city codes, and reread them as they potentially change. And, of course, it only takes one mistake to get a huge pile of crap.

kcgunfan said:

Just so we're clear, it is definitely illegal to take a gun into a school, look at RSMo 571.107.1.(10) You can have it in your car with a CCW endorsement, but not without one, unless it's not functioning, unloaded, or not readily accessible RSMo 571.030.1.(10) and 571.030.3 If you have a CCW and take it out of the car, or brandish it, hilarity will not ensue.

1. Statewide preemption for OC.
2. Require all facilities where CC is disallowed in RSMo 571.107 to be posted.
3. Give the law some teeth in dealing with localities without conforming OC and CC codes (Gladstone MO, I'm looking at you...)

Oddly enough, I don't necessarily have a problem with requiring training for CCW endorsement. It's nice to know that the people carrying concealed have had at least some training in how to use a gun, and the laws constraining it's use. I would like to see the fees to the county sheriff reduced, and the MSHP providing the background checks for free.

Click to expand...

It's definitely NOT against MO law to carry into a school. Read the statute you posted, particularly section 2. Every single one of those places is good to go in MO, as long as you have your CCW.

That statute is basically a feel-good for all those people. They can say "hey nobody can bring a concealed weapon in here" and feel genuinely happy about it. Ignorance is bliss however, and if you have a CCW all those places are LEGAL in MO.

ChiangShih said:

I like KCgunfan's list. If I may add my own little wish (though it probably will never happen) would be something similar to Swiss ammunition practices for their militia. For say CCW holders, in the interest of the safety of all citizens, one would want all people who carry guns to have plenty of practice and range time with their gun. This would mean a lot of range time for individuals who have CCWs or firearms safety permits. It would allow them to master their firearm and be accurate and efficient if they ever had to use it. However, ammo is expensive, so my solution would be, for the benefit for everyone, would be to subsidize ammunition costs for card holders. Some percentage off or provision of handgun ammunition, per month, or even a volunteer state run class every so often with provided ammunition, practice shooting, and refresh safety course. Volunteer of course.

But I'm dreaming and tired of paying for ammo.

Click to expand...

Subsidize ammo?? Are you kidding? That is a bad as every other subsidy.

It's saying "Hey, I really like to shoot my gun and even though I don't NEED to do it all the time, I WANT to. And since I WANT to, you should pay for it. And I'll elect any empty suit who promises what I WANT no matter how dumb it is."

We need less subsidies not more.

I'd like to see OC preemption, Constitutional Carry, and, on the federal level, no more GFSZ.

I'm not optimistic about any of this.

Well, it's not criminal, but it is against the law. They have to ask you to leave first, and if they call a peace officer, there's an escalating scale of fines and penalties. It's definitely more a slap on the wrist when a slapping of cuffs on the wrists, but it's still not kosher, and will not do anything to further our cause.

If you care to try it out, feel free to try and go into a courthouse armed, and tell a bailiff that you have a concealed weapon. Then watch their response. Technically, all they can do is to ask you to leave. I suspect you'll be treated more harshly.

kcgunfan said:

Well, it's not criminal, but it is against the law. They have to ask you to leave first, and if they call a peace officer, there's an escalating scale of fines and penalties. It's definitely more a slap on the wrist when a slapping of cuffs on the wrists, but it's still not kosher, and will not do anything to further our cause.

If you care to try it out, feel free to try and go into a courthouse armed, and tell a bailiff that you have a concealed weapon. Then watch their response. Technically, all they can do is to ask you to leave. I suspect you'll be treated more harshly.

Click to expand...

It's only against the law if you don't have a CCW.

How can you say "it's against the law" if there is no penalty for doing it?? Like I said it's a feel-good for people who can't read the whole law (God I love Missouri).

They can ask you to leave for wearing a Cubs shirt if they want. That's called property rights.

If I wanted a bailiff to know I had a weapon I would carry it openly. They can respond how they want to, and if they try to arrest me or charge me for being in compliance with the law, they can certainly sign a check with my name on it.

I can say it's against the law, because by doing so, you have violated RSMo 571.107.1.(10) (going back to schools.) Once you've violated the law, there is the issue of penalties. Those are set down in RSMo 571.107.2.

That section says that if you leave without a peace officer being summoned, you get away scot-free. And, it explicitly calls this not a criminal act, that's all unusual in the code, but my guess is that the state expects people to make mistakes, and if they admit their mistake, and fix the issue, there's no penalty. But, if you refuse to leave, then you can get in further trouble. You have still broken the law, it's just a very minor break, and nobody's going to make a stink if you then comply.

In any case, we're splitting hairs. I would not recommend going into one of the prohibited places in 571.107, regardless of the penalty. That's mostly because I want to remain on good terms in my community. And, I'm concerned that if breaking those statutes become commonplace, the "get out of jail card" will be rescinded. Evidently, you would not necessarily say that, because there is no real penalty. Maybe you place your 2A rights higher on your priority list than I do. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just not where I place my values.

kcgunfan said:

I can say it's against the law, because by doing so, you have violated RSMo 571.107.1.(10) (going back to schools.) Once you've violated the law, there is the issue of penalties. Those are set down in RSMo 571.107.2.

Click to expand...

571.102.2.(10) does NOT specify a prohibition and, therefore, cannot be violated. The statute simply specifies that your CCW endorsement doesn't necessarily authorize you to carry your concealed firearm into a specific place, but on the same hand, your CCW endorsement doesn't prohibit you from carrying your concealed firearm into said specific place either. What it is, in a nutshell, is a statement of neutrality from the state. They are essentially saying, "We, the state, do not have the authority to force a school to recognize your concealed carry endorsement. We cannot compel them to allow you to carry on premises they control.".

That section says that if you leave without a peace officer being summoned, you get away scot-free. And, it explicitly calls this not a criminal act, that's all unusual in the code, but my guess is that the state expects people to make mistakes, and if they admit their mistake, and fix the issue, there's no penalty. But, if you refuse to leave, then you can get in further trouble. You have still broken the law, it's just a very minor break, and nobody's going to make a stink if you then comply.

Click to expand...

Actually, you haven't broken any law. Provided you possess a valid Missouri CCW endorsement, it is absolutely not against state law to carry into a school in Missouri. Period.

It only becomes an offense if you are asked to leave and you refuse; an "infraction" if you will. On that note, it is an offense to refuse to leave after being asked REGARDLESS of whether or not you are carrying. The presence, or lack thereof, a concealed firearm is irrelevant.

In any case, we're splitting hairs. I would not recommend going into one of the prohibited places in 571.107, regardless of the penalty. That's mostly because I want to remain on good terms in my community. And, I'm concerned that if breaking those statutes become commonplace, the "get out of jail card" will be rescinded. Evidently, you would not necessarily say that, because there is no real penalty. Maybe you place your 2A rights higher on your priority list than I do. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just not where I place my values.

Click to expand...

But you are mistaken in calling these places "prohibited" areas in the first place. In reality, the only places a Missouri CCW endorsement holder is "prohibited" by law from carrying a concealed firearm in Missouri are those places where carrying such weapons is prohibited by Federal Law. There is a very big difference between the word, "prohibited", and the words, "not authorized". Our statutes were specifically written without ambiguity in this section for a reason. The folks who drafted this legislation were trying to allow for the maximum amount of freedom under these provisions, not only for the endorsement holder, but for the property owner as well.

cshoff said:

But you are mistaken in calling these places "prohibited" areas in the first place. In reality, the only places a Missouri CCW endorsement holder is "prohibited" by law from carrying a concealed firearm in Missouri are those places where carrying such weapons is prohibited by Federal Law. There is a very big difference between the word, "prohibited", and the words, "not authorized". Our statutes were specifically written without ambiguity in this section for a reason. The folks who drafted this legislation were trying to allow for the maximum amount of freedom under these provisions, not only for the endorsement holder, but for the property owner as well.

Click to expand...

And this is why I love Missouri. We certainly have been "given"- God I hate saying that- a lot of leeway as to where we can carry.

Also, I love property rights, and people being able to decide who and what they'll allow on their property.

cash50 said:

They can ask you to leave for wearing a Cubs shirt if they want. That's called property rights.

Click to expand...

The Cubs sell shirts? I didn't know people payed attention to them any more.

All right thinking Missourians would ask someone wearing a Cubs (or for that matter, Mets) shirt to leave. I'm surprised that's not listened under RSMo 563...

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. Upon conviction of charges arising from a citation issued pursuant to this subsection, the court shall notify the sheriff of the county which issued the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue. The sheriff shall suspend or revoke the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue shall issue a notice of such suspension or revocation of the concealed carry endorsement and take action to remove the concealed carry endorsement from the individual's driving record. The director of revenue shall notify the licensee that he or she must apply for a new license pursuant to chapter 302 which does not contain such endorsement. A concealed carry endorsement suspension pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall be reinstated at the time of the renewal of his or her driver's license. The notice issued by the department of revenue shall be mailed to the last known address shown on the individual's driving record. The notice is deemed received three days after mailing.

The wording seems straight forward enough to me.With a valid CCW you can carry in schools im Missouri.I believe it says:SHALL NOT BE A CRIMINAL ACT:. It cant be stated any simplier than that IMO.

According to Kevin Jamison (a prominent 2A attorney in KC), violating RSMo 571.107.1. is not a crime but an infraction. But it's not even an infraction unless your asked to leave, refuse to do so, and the police are called, and you're silly enough to hang around until they get there.

I'm willing to go with that definition. I will still contend that it's not useful to the cause to violate RSMo 571.1.107.1.

You can read more here http://www.kljamisonlaw.com/updates.asp if you have the time. It goes into the current state of weapon laws pretty well. BTW, I would recommend his book on self-defense and weapon laws in MO, which can be bought here: http://www.kljamisonlaw.com/author.htm Unfortunately, it was released before CC was passed, so it's out of date, but the first URL I gave has all of his updates to bring it current with MO statutes. But, it's an interesting read, if for no other reason than the history lesson he provides.

It seems to me that Mo. has over complicated there statutes.They contradict themselves, section 571.107 would seem to indicate that cc in schools with endorsment would be legal.
But under weapons offenses 571.030 (10) it would not be legal to carry in schools.

x1wildone said:

It seems to me that Mo. has over complicated there statutes.They contradict themselves, section 571.107 would seem to indicate that cc in schools with endorsment would be legal.
But under weapons offenses 571.030 (10) it would not be legal to carry in schools.

Click to expand...

You've found all of the meat, 571.030 and 571.107. I didn't mention 571.030 to you earlier because you said you had a CCW endorsement, and most of the stuff in there should be obvious. The piece you are missing is 571.030.4, which says that 571.030.1.(10) (and for that matter (1) and (8)) do not apply to valid CCW endorsements.

You are right, it's a twisty mess at best. But, here's how it was taught to me: 571.030 lists, in general, things you can't do with a gun. It then rescinds some of those for CCW endorsement holders. Then 571.107 lists a bunch more places you can't go with a CCW endorsement, but there's really no penalty for going there. I suspect most of 571.107.1 was put in to please the anti's, since it's not really a crime to go into the unauthorized places with a weapon. But, you really have to want to get into trouble to have a 571.107.1 CCW infraction in Missouri.

Oddly enough, I'm appreciative of the fact there is no penalty, as most of the CC infractions in other states involve CC holders going into disallowed places. It's not like they're trying to commit a crime, they just forgot, or didn't know they were prohibited. That cuts down on a lot of annoyances, for both the CCW endorsement holder and the local PD (if they know what they're doing).