I would like to take another “exercise in stupidity”

peterarthur · May 25, 2011

"or which regulates the open carrying of firearms ". Passing a law against being intoxicated would fall neatly into this law since it is "regulating the OPEN CARRY of firearms. I agree that CCW is pre-empted. Open carry is not, INCLUDING open carry while intoxicated or open carry while juggling bowling balls or whatever... seems fairly obvious... open carry CAN be regulated which is not limited to just STOPPING open carry but prescribing the manner in which it might be illegal to open carry. If the RSMO said that munis could make it illegal to OC that would be one thing. But they are allowed to "regulate" it, to put rules around it.

cshoff · May 25, 2011

peterarthur said:
"or which regulates the open carrying of firearms ". Passing a law against being intoxicated would fall neatly into this law since it is "regulating the OPEN CARRY of firearms. I agree that CCW is pre-empted. Open carry is not, INCLUDING open carry while intoxicated or open carry while juggling bowling balls or whatever... seems fairly obvious... open carry CAN be regulated which is not limited to just STOPPING open carry but prescribing the manner in which it might be illegal to open carry. If the RSMO said that munis could make it illegal to OC that would be one thing. But they are allowed to "regulate" it, to put rules around it.

Actually, there is a bit more to it than that. If you read the preemption statute, you will see exactly what the state has preempted. Specifically:

2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

A local ordinance that prohibits openly carried firearms while intoxicated would clearly get into the "use", "possession", and "bearing" portions of preemption and fall outside of the narrow limit of merely "regulating" openly carried firearms. So, as I stated above, only a portion of this kind of ordinance would be valid, and an ordinance that is only partially valid should be ruled completely invalid by any court (though it doesn't always work that way, especially with municipal courts).

Put another way, this would be like a city trying to impose a "open carry tax" whereby you had to pay the city a tax if you wanted to open carry withing their jurisdiction. That would be in clear violation of 21.750. Or as another example, it would be like a city trying to implement a gun registration requirement for those who wanted to open carry within their jurisdiction. Again, an ordinance such as that would be in clear violation of 21.750. The state has completely preempted those subjects as they relate to firearms and a city is not at liberty to attempt to delve into those fields of legislation under the guise of open carry regulation.

stled · May 25, 2011

sohighlyunlikely said:
Hmmm. It was my understanding that the state did give them superseding restriction rights on any OC (not including carry on your own property or property you are authorized to carry on). Like some muni's restrict OC in "car carry". polling places, parks and other odd places. You are saying that if they had no non OC law they couldn't write a legal law to regulate OC while intoxicated?

Doc

Any type of carry is legal in your vehicle, it is an extension of your home. A vehicle includes almost anything that is self powered and requires registration. Including cars, trucks and motorcycles.

I guess I need to make sure the MW PD knows the law in case my shirt blows up while scooting through. I have taken most of my shopping elsewhere since there OC ban.

Ed

cshoff · May 25, 2011

stled said:
Any type of carry is legal in your vehicle, it is an extension of your home. A vehicle includes almost anything that is self powered and requires registration. Including cars, trucks and motorcycles.

I guess I need to make sure the MW PD knows the law in case my shirt blows up while scooting through. I have taken most of my shopping elsewhere since there OC ban.

Ed

That is not necessarily the case. For example, the City of St. Louis ordinance 15.130.040, specifically prohibits firearms, exposed in whole or in part, carried on or about your person, "in any place of public accommodation or at any public gathering or on any public property, street or thoroughfare". If, for example, you attempt to drive through St. Louis City with a rifle in the rear rack of your pickup truck, city police WILL stop you and cite you under that ordinance if they see it. And while I feel they are dangerously close to overstepping state preemption on "transporting" firearms with that ordinance, I've yet to hear of a case where any conviction under those circumstances has been overturned.

Furthermore, I'm not really sure where the idea that a vehicle is an extension of your home really comes from. Clearly, you have certain private property rights in your vehicle, but they don't go nearly as far as they do in your home.

SavageOne · May 26, 2011

cshoff said:
That is not necessarily the case. For example, the City of St. Louis ordinance 15.130.040, specifically prohibits firearms, exposed in whole or in part, carried on or about your person, "in any place of public accommodation or at any public gathering or on any public property, street or thoroughfare". If, for example, you attempt to drive through St. Louis City with a rifle in the rear rack of your pickup truck, city police WILL stop you and cite you under that ordinance if they see it. And while I feel they are dangerously close to overstepping state preemption on "transporting" firearms with that ordinance, I've yet to hear of a case where any conviction under those circumstances has been overturned.

Furthermore, I'm not really sure where the idea that a vehicle is an extension of your home really comes from. Clearly, you have certain private property rights in your vehicle, but they don't go nearly as far as they do in your home.

I think it comes from the inclusion of vehicles in the "Missouri Castle Doctrine". Section 563.031.3 includes vehicles as an area you are not required to retreat from. I would bet many have taken this to mean their vehicle is therefore considered the same as their home(i.e. their "castle").

cshoff · May 26, 2011

SavageOne said:
I think it comes from the inclusion of vehicles in the "Missouri Castle Doctrine". Section 563.031.3 includes vehicles as an area you are not required to retreat from. I would bet many have taken this to mean their vehicle is therefore considered the same as their home(i.e. their "castle").

That would be an error on their part. The "Castle Doctrine" only deals with the justifiable use of force. It has nothing to do with carrying, possessing, or transporting firearms.

kylemoul · May 26, 2011

that is correct

stled that applies if someone was trying to carjack you or forcefully enter your vehicle

mechanicworkman · May 31, 2011

Seriously r you all off your rocker/lost your minds

OK, I am brand new to this form I registered for this and went through all the stuff because of this post. I read over it yesterday and just got done reading over it again today to make sure I didn’t miss anything.

I am almost mind boggled of or just plain not understanding how you all are coming to the point. In fact I am almost of the conclusion that you somehow twist the facts in your minds to justify it being ok.

YOu are going to be the same people sittting behind bars with your court appointed lawyer argueing what your saying now and have him show you what your didnt want to listen to.
“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law” ----Then what are your going to get the FELONY Charge for?
I mean it I have found numerous places like the NRA website which I will post the link here and you can read:

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MOSL.pdf

It says “It is a misdemeanor to possess an unloaded firearm when intoxicated; it is a felony to possess a loaded firearm while intoxicated.” I mean am I missing some KEY pieces of information here?

I read person after person comparing things one to another so im going to make a comparison of my own.

In most states there are “speed limits” they say just that speed limit I.E “SPEED LIMIT 55”

Any one that is from or has been to Oregon can tell you when you see the sign in most states that say “ SPEED LIMIT 55” well in OREGON it only says “SPEED 55” because there is not speed limit there is only the posted speed ZONE.

Does this in anyway mean that in Oregon that I cannot get a speeding ticket for doing 75 in a 25 MPH speed zone? …..NO…..You’re going to JAIL. Not going to pass go! You’re getting a ticket going to jail and losing your license.

Back to the original saying

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

I would like to cite the court cases:

Missouri v. Richard was decided earlier this week by the Missouri Supreme Court, solely on the basis of the Missouri Constitution. Missouri law, Section 571.030.1(5) punishes someone who “Possesses or discharges a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated.”
In the 1979 case People v. Garcia, the Supreme Court of Colorado dealt with a similar statute. The ruled that the statute only applied to “actual or physical control.” So if a person is drunk in his living room, and owns a gun which is stored in his downstairs closet, the statute would not apply. The Missouri decision is consistent with the Colorado standard, since Richard actually was possessing the handgun.

The next is a news article:

Mo. Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession by intoxicated people
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law barring intoxicated people from having guns.
The ruling clears the way for the prosecution of a Southeast Missouri man found unconscious with a loaded gun in 2006. John L. Richard, of Benton, was found passed out in a chair in his home after he threatened to kill himself -- or make police do it -- after his wife told him she was leaving, according to briefs filed with the Supreme Court. Richard took an unknown amount of morphine and an antidepressant after arguing with his wife, the briefs said.

He was charged with a felony for possessing a loaded gun while intoxicated, but a Mississippi County judge declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the case before trial in 2008. The state Supreme Court overruled that decision 7-0, saying Missouri has the authority to regulate how residents handle guns.

"Possession of a loaded firearm by an intoxicated individual poses a demonstrated threat to public safety," Judge Richard Teitelman wrote in the majority opinion. He noted several cases in which an intoxicated person was reported to have shot someone.
The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense. Violations are a misdemeanor, but because Richard's gun was loaded, the charge was elevated to a felony punishable with up to four years in prison.

Public defender Craig Johnston, who represented Richard, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday. In September, Johnston argued before the Supreme Court that the ban was too broad and threatened to criminalize legal behavior.

Now I would like to hear after reading some of this how in any way shape or form you could legally justify

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

I challenge each and every one of you who really thinks its not against the law to do this to explain to me how I won’t go to jail, have my gun taken from me & never returned, become a felon, and and be stripped of my right to keep and bare arms.

SavageOne · May 31, 2011

The statue we are all referring to is found here

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

If you look at 571.030.1.5 you will see it reads as follows

(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;

As you can see several things have to happen for it to be a crime. 1. Must be intoxicated 2. Must have a firearm on their person 3. (this is the important one) Must handle or use in a negligent or unlawful manner or discharge weapon.

So, being intoxicated and in mere possession of a firearm does not meet all the requirements to be a crime.

It may be helpful for you to know that the language in this statue was changed in August of 2010, I believe. Prior to that time it was in fact illegal to be intoxicated and in possession of a firearm. The case you cited before the MSC happen before the statue was changed, and therefore would have to viewed under the statue in effect at that time.

Thank you for your advice on armchair lawyers, may I suggest instead of looking to NRA websites for the law of Missouri you instead look on the sites provided by our state which actually show the current statues.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/STATUTES/STATUTES.HTM

Had you done this you might have seen that Missouri v. Richards was adjudicated under the old language of the statue.

None the less, welcome to the forum.

cshoff · May 31, 2011

Gerald Workman said:
OK, I am brand new to this form I registered for this and went through all the stuff because of this post. I read over it yesterday and just got done reading over it again today to make sure I didn’t miss anything.

I am almost mind boggled of or just plain not understanding how you all are coming to the point. In fact I am almost of the conclusion that you somehow twist the facts in your minds to justify it being ok.

YOu are going to be the same people sittting behind bars with your court appointed lawyer argueing what your saying now and have him show you what your didnt want to listen to.
“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law” ----Then what are your going to get the FELONY Charge for?
I mean it I have found numerous places like the NRA website which I will post the link here and you can read:

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MOSL.pdf

It says “It is a misdemeanor to possess an unloaded firearm when intoxicated; it is a felony to possess a loaded firearm while intoxicated.” I mean am I missing some KEY pieces of information here?

I read person after person comparing things one to another so im going to make a comparison of my own.

In most states there are “speed limits” they say just that speed limit I.E “SPEED LIMIT 55”

Any one that is from or has been to Oregon can tell you when you see the sign in most states that say “ SPEED LIMIT 55” well in OREGON it only says “SPEED 55” because there is not speed limit there is only the posted speed ZONE.

Does this in anyway mean that in Oregon that I cannot get a speeding ticket for doing 75 in a 25 MPH speed zone? …..NO…..You’re going to JAIL. Not going to pass go! You’re getting a ticket going to jail and losing your license.

Back to the original saying

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

I would like to cite the court cases:

Missouri v. Richard was decided earlier this week by the Missouri Supreme Court, solely on the basis of the Missouri Constitution. Missouri law, Section 571.030.1(5) punishes someone who “Possesses or discharges a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated.”
In the 1979 case People v. Garcia, the Supreme Court of Colorado dealt with a similar statute. The ruled that the statute only applied to “actual or physical control.” So if a person is drunk in his living room, and owns a gun which is stored in his downstairs closet, the statute would not apply. The Missouri decision is consistent with the Colorado standard, since Richard actually was possessing the handgun.

The next is a news article:

Mo. Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession by intoxicated people
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law barring intoxicated people from having guns.
The ruling clears the way for the prosecution of a Southeast Missouri man found unconscious with a loaded gun in 2006. John L. Richard, of Benton, was found passed out in a chair in his home after he threatened to kill himself -- or make police do it -- after his wife told him she was leaving, according to briefs filed with the Supreme Court. Richard took an unknown amount of morphine and an antidepressant after arguing with his wife, the briefs said.

He was charged with a felony for possessing a loaded gun while intoxicated, but a Mississippi County judge declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the case before trial in 2008. The state Supreme Court overruled that decision 7-0, saying Missouri has the authority to regulate how residents handle guns.

"Possession of a loaded firearm by an intoxicated individual poses a demonstrated threat to public safety," Judge Richard Teitelman wrote in the majority opinion. He noted several cases in which an intoxicated person was reported to have shot someone.
The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense. Violations are a misdemeanor, but because Richard's gun was loaded, the charge was elevated to a felony punishable with up to four years in prison.

Public defender Craig Johnston, who represented Richard, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday. In September, Johnston argued before the Supreme Court that the ban was too broad and threatened to criminalize legal behavior.

Now I would like to hear after reading some of this how in any way shape or form you could legally justify

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

I challenge each and every one of you who really thinks its not against the law to do this to explain to me how I won’t go to jail, have my gun taken from me & never returned, become a felon, and and be stripped of my right to keep and bare arms.

First, you can't pull some quote off of the NRA website and take it as gospel. You absolutely MUST read the CURRENT Missouri statute that relates to possession of firearms for intoxicated persons. As was just pointed out above, that particular statute was amended as of August 28, 2010.

Prior to August 28, 2010, the statute read:

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; or

So as you can see, it was indeed unlawful to simply possess a firearm while intoxicated under the old language. In fact, it was a Class D Felony if the firearm was loaded, and a Class A Misdemeanor if it was unloaded.

Due to the blanket application of that law that the MO Supreme Court decided to enforce, we undertook the task of amending it last year so a man or woman having a few beers in his or her home who happened to have a firearm in the house, wouldn't wind up with a felony conviction on his or her record. As it was, the old language was entirely too narrow and arbitrary. The changes we made amended the statute so it now reads:

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;

So as you can see, and as was pointed out above, there are now three criteria that must be present before an unlawful use of weapons charge can be present under this statute. You must:

A) Actually be in possession of a firearm;
B) Actually be intoxicated, which is defined as "a substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body"; and
C) You must actually use the firearm in a negligent or unlawful manner, or actually discharge it.

So I reiterate, once again, merely having a firearm in your possession while intoxicated in Missouri is NOT a violation of the law, and it hasn't been since August 27, 2010.

kylemoul · May 31, 2011

:lol:

Richieg150 · May 31, 2011

SavageOne said:
Thank you for your advice on armchair lawyers, may I suggest instead of looking to NRA websites for the law of Missouri you instead look on the sites provided by our state which actually show the current statues.

cshoff said:
First, you can't pull some quote off of the NRA website and take it as gospel. You absolutely MUST read the CURRENT Missouri statute that relates to possession of firearms for intoxicated persons. As was just pointed out above, that particular statute was amended as of August 28, 2010.

These statements are 100% correct..Just because the N.R.A. supports our 2nd. Amendment rights, does make them knowledgeble on State by State gun laws. When I took my CCW , before they were available im Missouri, my Certffied NRA Instructor, spoke about the NRA not supporting and discouraging Open Carry, and said QUOTE,"Its illegal to do it, so dont do it." He was talking about Missouri, which I learned was just the opposite, he was probably told that, never researched it out, and maybe had to have that view being a NRA Instructor, Im not sure... but I now know he was 100% incorrect.

cash50 · May 31, 2011

Gerald Workman said:
OK, I am brand new to this form I registered for this and went through all the stuff because of this post. I read over it yesterday and just got done reading over it again today to make sure I didn’t miss anything.

I am almost mind boggled of or just plain not understanding how you all are coming to the point. In fact I am almost of the conclusion that you somehow twist the facts in your minds to justify it being ok.

YOu are going to be the same people sittting behind bars with your court appointed lawyer argueing what your saying now and have him show you what your didnt want to listen to.
“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law” ----Then what are your going to get the FELONY Charge for?
I mean it I have found numerous places like the NRA website which I will post the link here and you can read:

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MOSL.pdf

It says “It is a misdemeanor to possess an unloaded firearm when intoxicated; it is a felony to possess a loaded firearm while intoxicated.” I mean am I missing some KEY pieces of information here?

I read person after person comparing things one to another so im going to make a comparison of my own.

In most states there are “speed limits” they say just that speed limit I.E “SPEED LIMIT 55”

Any one that is from or has been to Oregon can tell you when you see the sign in most states that say “ SPEED LIMIT 55” well in OREGON it only says “SPEED 55” because there is not speed limit there is only the posted speed ZONE.

Does this in anyway mean that in Oregon that I cannot get a speeding ticket for doing 75 in a 25 MPH speed zone? …..NO…..You’re going to JAIL. Not going to pass go! You’re getting a ticket going to jail and losing your license.

Back to the original saying

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

I would like to cite the court cases:

Missouri v. Richard was decided earlier this week by the Missouri Supreme Court, solely on the basis of the Missouri Constitution. Missouri law, Section 571.030.1(5) punishes someone who “Possesses or discharges a firearm or projectile weapon while intoxicated.”
In the 1979 case People v. Garcia, the Supreme Court of Colorado dealt with a similar statute. The ruled that the statute only applied to “actual or physical control.” So if a person is drunk in his living room, and owns a gun which is stored in his downstairs closet, the statute would not apply. The Missouri decision is consistent with the Colorado standard, since Richard actually was possessing the handgun.

The next is a news article:

Mo. Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession by intoxicated people
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law barring intoxicated people from having guns.
The ruling clears the way for the prosecution of a Southeast Missouri man found unconscious with a loaded gun in 2006. John L. Richard, of Benton, was found passed out in a chair in his home after he threatened to kill himself -- or make police do it -- after his wife told him she was leaving, according to briefs filed with the Supreme Court. Richard took an unknown amount of morphine and an antidepressant after arguing with his wife, the briefs said.

He was charged with a felony for possessing a loaded gun while intoxicated, but a Mississippi County judge declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the case before trial in 2008. The state Supreme Court overruled that decision 7-0, saying Missouri has the authority to regulate how residents handle guns.

"Possession of a loaded firearm by an intoxicated individual poses a demonstrated threat to public safety," Judge Richard Teitelman wrote in the majority opinion. He noted several cases in which an intoxicated person was reported to have shot someone.
The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense. Violations are a misdemeanor, but because Richard's gun was loaded, the charge was elevated to a felony punishable with up to four years in prison.

Public defender Craig Johnston, who represented Richard, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday. In September, Johnston argued before the Supreme Court that the ban was too broad and threatened to criminalize legal behavior.

Now I would like to hear after reading some of this how in any way shape or form you could legally justify

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

I challenge each and every one of you who really thinks its not against the law to do this to explain to me how I won’t go to jail, have my gun taken from me & never returned, become a felon, and and be stripped of my right to keep and bare arms.

I challenge you to stick around and learn some more.

kcgunfan · May 31, 2011

Gerald Workman said:
OK, I am brand new to this form I registered for this and went through all the stuff because of this post. I read over it yesterday and just got done reading over it again today to make sure I didn’t miss anything.

I am almost mind boggled of or just plain not understanding how you all are coming to the point. In fact I am almost of the conclusion that you somehow twist the facts in your minds to justify it being ok.

...

I challenge each and every one of you who really thinks its not against the law to do this to explain to me how I won’t go to jail, have my gun taken from me & never returned, become a felon, and and be stripped of my right to keep and bare arms.

I would recommend that the next time you join an Internet forum, you might consider making your first post a little less trollish. If you think we're all a bunch of morons, that's fine with me. But if you wish to question what we say, it can be done in a much less confrontational way.

We all make mistakes here, and we get corrected by others. Lord knows I've done it myself. But, we do it in a friendly fashion, without getting our panties in a bunch. As a matter of fact, if you read this thread carefully, you would have read the discussion around an automobile and the Castle Doctrine. Notice how there were no attempts to accuse people of trying to make up laws. it was simply a misunderstanding that was corrected.

By the way, if you are a convicted felon, you still have the right to bare arms, I'm not sure why you think you don't.

Personally, I've decided to classify you as a troll. I imagine that you won't be back, and won't admit to being wrong either.

cshoff · May 31, 2011

Richieg150 said:
These statements are 100% correct..Just because the N.R.A. supports our 2nd. Amendment rights, does make them knowledgeble on State by State gun laws. When I took my CCW , before they were available im Missouri, my Certffied NRA Instructor, spoke about the NRA not supporting and discouraging Open Carry, and said QUOTE,"Its illegal to do it, so dont do it." He was talking about Missouri, which I learned was just the opposite, he was probably told that, never researched it out, and maybe had to have that view being a NRA Instructor, Im not sure... but I now know he was 100% incorrect.

After having gone through over 70 hours of NRA Instructor training myself, in addition to co-instructing another 200+ hours of NRA Instructor Development Courses, I can assure you that your instructor's incorrect information and his discouraging open carry had nothing whatsoever to do with the NRA. The NRA absolutely does not allow their civilian instructors to teach law in their capacity as an NRA instructor, nor do they provide legal advice or legal instruction material to civilian instructors. In addition, the NRA neither encourages or discourages any form of carry in their instructor training programs. Your instructor's opinions and inaccuracies were his and his alone.

mechanicworkman · May 31, 2011

Troll Makes ammends and has more questions

First & foremost I would like to thank Savageone for getting the initial bulldozer moving/getting the hole & grave ready for the rest of you to push this “TROLL” into in preparations for my burial.

I do apologize if I offended anyone as that was not my intention but, more my lack of being well informed.

Now I certainly don’t plan on running out and getting tanked while strapped with my carry pistol to try and practice this in an everyday situation.

But I do on I am not one people that is un-teachable and even presented with the facts still fails to see the light or “Fails to admit when they are wrong”---I STAND CORRECTED & (I was wrong for those that need that to be said in words)

I know I would much rather be wrong on here than wrong dead on a street somewhere or wrong in a jail cell but then again being totally right sitting in a jail cell doesn’t exactly fit my fancy either.

I do plan to stick around and plan to chime in from time to time. I have actually enjoyed this firearm form much more than the other one I get on THE HIGH ROAD. Which the moderators are quite strict and would never have let a form like this continue. I find this form much more educational & fun. I do enjoy a good debate!

So this brings up my next question for any of you. Since we have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that:

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

Has anyone located any case law supporting this fact? I have been searching the internet and have found several news articles where police are very much still enforcing the old law standards even though; this new law is in effect as of 28 Aug 2010.

I very much understand that police enforce the laws under a few different ways:
1. How they understand the law.
2. How they interpret the law to be.
3. How the law is.
4. However they want.

Police are neither lawyer nor judges which is why we have a court system to essentially sort out what the different ways these laws have been enforced and to punish those people who have indeed broken those laws and been caught.

So I guess my point or outlook on this is even though the law says one thing and any lower judge can rule either way and until the supreme court gets ahold of it it really don’t make a difference until some kind of a final decision has been made and what I am looking is really dangerous is the members of the supreme court as well as other judges I could say don’t not necessarily judge on the LAW but, rather Interpret the law.

And that in and of itself could make for a bad precedent because of their personal views and way of thinking of NO DRRINKING with a firearm period?

Am I on the right train of thought here and thinking correctly on this what is your guys views?

cshoff · May 31, 2011

Gerald Workman said:
First & foremost I would like to thank Savageone for getting the initial bulldozer moving/getting the hole & grave ready for the rest of you to push this “TROLL” into in preparations for my burial.

I do apologize if I offended anyone as that was not my intention but, more my lack of being well informed.

Now I certainly don’t plan on running out and getting tanked while strapped with my carry pistol to try and practice this in an everyday situation.

But I do on I am not one people that is un-teachable and even presented with the facts still fails to see the light or “Fails to admit when they are wrong”---I STAND CORRECTED & (I was wrong for those that need that to be said in words)

I know I would much rather be wrong on here than wrong dead on a street somewhere or wrong in a jail cell but then again being totally right sitting in a jail cell doesn’t exactly fit my fancy either.

I do plan to stick around and plan to chime in from time to time. I have actually enjoyed this firearm form much more than the other one I get on THE HIGH ROAD. Which the moderators are quite strict and would never have let a form like this continue. I find this form much more educational & fun. I do enjoy a good debate!

So this brings up my next question for any of you. Since we have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that:

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

Has anyone located any case law supporting this fact? I have been searching the internet and have found several news articles where police are very much still enforcing the old law standards even though; this new law is in effect as of 28 Aug 2010.

I very much understand that police enforce the laws under a few different ways:
1. How they understand the law.
2. How they interpret the law to be.
3. How the law is.
4. However they want.

Police are neither lawyer nor judges which is why we have a court system to essentially sort out what the different ways these laws have been enforced and to punish those people who have indeed broken those laws and been caught.

So I guess my point or outlook on this is even though the law says one thing and any lower judge can rule either way and until the supreme court gets ahold of it it really don’t make a difference until some kind of a final decision has been made and what I am looking is really dangerous is the members of the supreme court as well as other judges I could say don’t not necessarily judge on the LAW but, rather Interpret the law.

And that in and of itself could make for a bad precedent because of their personal views and way of thinking of NO DRRINKING with a firearm period?

Am I on the right train of thought here and thinking correctly on this what is your guys views?

I would be curious to read these "several news articles where police are very much still enforcing the old law standards" that you have found. I suspect there is probably more to those cases than just a simple case of a person being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated. They probably involved operating a motor vehicle, or a person with prior felony convictions, or something more.

As to your request for court cases that support the new law, unless something has made it's way through the system over the past 9 months (which is doubtful), then no such case law exists. However, the MO Supreme Court already set a precedent on this issue when they ruled on the prior law. It's unlikely that they would change the arbitrary nature of the previous ruling on the prior law, to some kind of more subjective, watered-down ruling of the current law.

kcgunfan · May 31, 2011

Gerald Workman said:
First & foremost I would like to thank Savageone for getting the initial bulldozer moving/getting the hole & grave ready for the rest of you to push this “TROLL” into in preparations for my burial.

I do apologize if I offended anyone as that was not my intention but, more my lack of being well informed.

Now I certainly don’t plan on running out and getting tanked while strapped with my carry pistol to try and practice this in an everyday situation.

But I do on I am not one people that is un-teachable and even presented with the facts still fails to see the light or “Fails to admit when they are wrong”---I STAND CORRECTED & (I was wrong for those that need that to be said in words)

I know I would much rather be wrong on here than wrong dead on a street somewhere or wrong in a jail cell but then again being totally right sitting in a jail cell doesn’t exactly fit my fancy either.

I do plan to stick around and plan to chime in from time to time. I have actually enjoyed this firearm form much more than the other one I get on THE HIGH ROAD. Which the moderators are quite strict and would never have let a form like this continue. I find this form much more educational & fun. I do enjoy a good debate!

So this brings up my next question for any of you. Since we have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that:

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

Has anyone located any case law supporting this fact? I have been searching the internet and have found several news articles where police are very much still enforcing the old law standards even though; this new law is in effect as of 28 Aug 2010.

I very much understand that police enforce the laws under a few different ways:
1. How they understand the law.
2. How they interpret the law to be.
3. How the law is.
4. However they want.

Police are neither lawyer nor judges which is why we have a court system to essentially sort out what the different ways these laws have been enforced and to punish those people who have indeed broken those laws and been caught.

So I guess my point or outlook on this is even though the law says one thing and any lower judge can rule either way and until the supreme court gets ahold of it it really don’t make a difference until some kind of a final decision has been made and what I am looking is really dangerous is the members of the supreme court as well as other judges I could say don’t not necessarily judge on the LAW but, rather Interpret the law.

And that in and of itself could make for a bad precedent because of their personal views and way of thinking of NO DRRINKING with a firearm period?

Am I on the right train of thought here and thinking correctly on this what is your guys views?

Thank you for understanding our point of view. We get quite a few trolls here, and we're quite used to the hit and run posts, so I'm pleased you've decided to hang around.

I think you will find that most of us will not carry when we're drinking, and the vast majority of who remains will moderate their drinking when carrying. It may appear that we support it from our discussion of the law, but just because something is legal doesn't make it a good idea.

I'm not sure what you're wanting to find out with case law. The previous law had been found to be valid by the MO Supreme Court, as you pointed out, but the legislature decided that it wasn't a good law, and loosened it into it's current state. Generally, if a stricter law is found to be constitutional, there's no reason why a more liberal law would be found unconstitutional.

There is no doubt that all LEO's are not up on the current MO State Statutes. There are some that will arrest you for Open Carrying, even if it's legal, never mind if you've been drinking. We don't want to run into these LEO's, and we don't go looking for them, but it happens on occasion. When we do, we attempt to educate them, not get in a ******* match. If the education fails, and nobody catches the mistake, you've got a good chance of going to jail, at least for a while.

If you are arrested, you will likely have the charges dropped by the DA. He doesn't have the luxury of not knowing the law, and he's not going to prosecute a case he expects to lose, for obvious reasons. Unless, there's something more afoot, but usually there is not.

Even the lower courts are supposed to judge in accordance with the state statutes. For example, you can't be convicted for wearing blue on Saturday, because there is no law saying you can't do that. And yes, sometimes the lower courts get smacked down on appeal. It should not come to that, but sometimes judges and prosecutors get their political beliefs before their legal duty. The good news is that they're elected...

By and large, the DA's and judges do follow the law in the state, although there are exceptions to everything.

LMTD · Jun 1, 2011

Gerald Workman said:
So this brings up my next question for any of you. Since we have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that:

“Having a weapon in possession while intoxicated in Missouri is not a violation of the law”

Has anyone located any case law supporting this fact? I have been searching the internet and have found several news articles where police are very much still enforcing the old law standards even though; this new law is in effect as of 28 Aug 2010.

And that in and of itself could make for a bad precedent because of their personal views and way of thinking of NO DRRINKING with a firearm period?

Am I on the right train of thought here and thinking correctly on this what is your guys views?

Edited for clarity and only the parts I am responding to:

When a LEO charges someone with a crime they have to list the violation by the criminal code number. Since the drinking with a firearm is now very clearly defined as something that is NOT illegal, you are going to have a very hard time finding case law on something that is not against the law. You MIGHT spot a civil action if a LEO charges someone and jails them only to find out afterwards that the law changed, in that situation the LEO would be in multiple hot seats.

There is nothing wrong with having a firearm and drinking. I am not a fan of cleaning or recreational shooting of firearms while drinking myself but if a creep breaks in my home at this very moment, he will indeed see the wrong end of a 1911 despite the fact I am sipping a cocktail.

I have no idea if you are on the right track or not, you walked in the door calling us all nuts so you can imagine you are going to have a lot more work in front of you to re-earn merit.

As far as your thoughts on the matter go, this is an interesting group of mavericks and you will find that by and large no one cares what your OPINION is, everyone is granted that and pretty much for the most part that is respected although it may be very clear why someone disagrees, they still grant others the right to disagree.

mechanicworkman · Jun 1, 2011

Dui checkpoint

Hey Again!
I guess the reason I ask about case law is to view the outcome of other cases with similarities and how they courts have ruled differntly since this law took effect. I am with all of you in that I will not be running out with my firearm and looking to be arrested so I can try this out.

I guess solely am wondering how well this has actually been BATTLE TESTED and proven.

Now I understand the law saying order to be convicted you must do the following and #4being the most Important and without it the rest is meaningless:

1. Possess a firearm capable of lethal use;
2. On your person (i.e. actually on your body);
3. While intoxicated;
4. And actually handling or otherwise using it in a negligent or otherwise unlawful manner;
5. Unless you're acting in self defense

As we know and you have stated police can charge, and arrest for anything they want. Will the charges stick and a conviction become the end result that is another story?
Like you have stated finding a clear cut case of only weapon in possession while intoxicated is turning out to be much harder. All these examples that I keep finding is not the average guy, these are criminals, people whom seem to be on probation or any number of things, I find people stalking, or beating there wife or god knows what.
The most common I seem to find seems to be that it’s found in conjunction with a DUI Checkpoint/Sobriety Checkpoint.

Now if someone was to be pulled over in a DUI checkpoint. The person was suspected to be intoxicated so a field sobriety test was performed. Now this person fails, officers search person, & find firearm all the while the person is complying with everything the officers ask and being as polite as humanly possible.

So officers charge person with DUI & Possession of weapon while intoxicated.
How did this person meet all the requirements 1-4 enough to be charged with more than just a DUI?

I will concede that a guy out with his wife having a couple beers and upon leaving the restaurant they aren’t likely to have any problem. I mean if I drink I take a cab.But it is good to know that I do have options and know that my rights are there and the decision is up to me to ensure that I make the right one.

I would like to take another “exercise in stupidity”

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member