Mardi Gras in Soulard

[deepdiver]

We have friends in Soulard who host an annual Mardi Gras event at their home, but everyone ventures out to the parade and to the blocked off street party area. Previous years this has been a time I tend to imbibe somewhat, um, enthusiastically so I don't carry. However, I have noticed that several areas blocked to traffic have no weapons signs and something about some organizational sponsor. At first blush I would assume those zones are unenforceable and moreso under last years' statutory and constitutional changes but it has not previously been of issue as stated.

This year I am inclined to not imbibe and carry (likely CC as it is too crowded for me to be comfortable OC as my head only swivels so far). But the method aside, what does everyone think about enforceability of such signage on city placed barricades to a public area? Or maybe there is some other license going on that effects the area/event. I honestly just don't know. But last year we were inadvertently near (by near I mean Tueller would have been nervous) two different potentially lethal situations in which a nutjob had a blade and in both cops drew sidearms and only 2 blocks away from when and where a cop euthanized a BG. Next time the cop may be too far down the block.

 

[davidmcbeth]

IMO drinking and carrying should not be illegal.

 

[Griz]

IMO drinking and carrying should not be illegal.

the OP stated he would not be drinking

 

[davidmcbeth]

the OP stated he would not be drinking

Yes..appears as if in prior times, he did not carry because he was drinking. So, relevant to post.

 

[bmhenry]

IMO drinking and carrying should not be illegal.

Off topic, but it isn't illegal as long as you are not handling negligently?? RSMO: 571.030. 1 (5)

 

[OC for ME]

Public streets blocked to traffic do not make them private property. Last year private venues had "barriers" that defined their space. Such as a restaurant using the street for added capacity. If you are not in a "private" venue you are on public property. This likely applies to folks who put up a tent on a parking lot that may be public, such as the Capt Morgan tent last year. Though, that lot may have been private, I didn't pay much attention to that.

 

[deepdiver]

To clarify - I have not previously carried for this event because it is an occasion I let my hair down with friends and don't worry about how much I imbibe. If I am carrying I do worry about how much I imbibe. Ergo, no carry. It's that simple. Nothing to do with legality as to drinking.

What I still don't know is if those signs on city barricades blocking off a public area have any force and effect or if maybe there is an organizational sponsor who has some standing to make such a restriction.

Some years ago we went through all the confusion about whether an organization using municipal premises could put restrictions on those premises supra municipal authority, i.e. can a community sponsor of an event on public property restrict carry on that property even if not otherwise or at other times prohibited. Clearly I can walk armed, OC or CC, down any public street in Soulard right now, today.

 

[deepdiver]

Public streets blocked to traffic do not make them private property. Last year private venues had "barriers" that defined their space. Such as a restaurant using the street for added capacity. If you are not in a "private" venue you are on public property. This likely applies to folks who put up a tent on a parking lot that may be public, such as the Capt Morgan tent last year. Though, that lot may have been private, I didn't pay much attention to that.

I didn't ignore your post OC, I had started replying earlier and got otherwise involved so by the time I actually posted it looks like I ignored your comments.

On the surface I agree with you. But Mardi Gras Inc. or something like that puts on the parade and sponsors certain events. I think it was their logo on the no firearms signs stapled to the barricades. We get the same thing in SE MO with the SEMO District Fair people who still assert that their occasional lease of the local fairgrounds supersedes state statutes on any carry.

 

[BB62]

... At first blush I would assume those zones are unenforceable and moreso under last years' statutory and constitutional changes but it has not previously been of issue as stated...

(my bold)

What, praytell, do "constitutional changes" have to do with your question? Remember, we don't know what the constitutional change (Amendment 5/Article 1, Section 23) means until: a) a test case arises, or b) the legislature changes things.

And DON'T YOU FORGET IT!!

 

[OC for ME]

I didn't ignore your post OC, I had started replying earlier and got otherwise involved so by the time I actually posted it looks like I ignored your comments.

On the surface I agree with you. But Mardi Gras Inc. or something like that puts on the parade and sponsors certain events. I think it was their logo on the no firearms signs stapled to the barricades. We get the same thing in SE MO with the SEMO District Fair people who still assert that their occasional lease of the local fairgrounds supersedes state statutes on any carry.

I do not know if the streets can be rented for the period of the Mardi Gras given that there are residences also on those streets. I'll check with STLPD and see what they say and have them cite the ordinances and statutes that support a OC ban during the Mardi Gras time frame.

 

[Redbaron007]

IIRC, public buildings can be posted if city owned/operated/leased....however, IMHO, I don't think they can temporarily rent out the property (non-building) and allow carry restrictions that were not otherwise in place. Just my quick assessment.

Keep us posted OC.

 

[LMTD]

IIRC, public buildings can be posted if city owned/operated/leased....however, IMHO, I don't think they can temporarily rent out the property (non-building) and allow carry restrictions that were not otherwise in place. Just my quick assessment.

Keep us posted OC.

I am pretty sure , well no, I am positive I do not agree with the above.

If I lease property I am in control of that property, I believe it would be my choice in the matter as to allow or disallow carry upon it.

While we could debate the issue all day long, whether or not the CITY could regulate it is an entirely different debate. No I do not believe the city could make a blanket statement, however I have little doubt that they could make it a condition of said lease, they might be able to make it a condition of a temporary liquor license etc. Those are contractual agreements between the lease holder and the lessee which are entered into voluntarily, aka consent.

Only some pretty sharp lawyers are going to answer those questions.

The one thing that is clear, it is not a criminal act to carry into any of those locations or even to violate the signs, however clearly OC vs CCW is indeed going to make said violation of said sign or property owner/ lessee regulations and if they are anti will likely result in a police response.

Instead of concerning myself with the legalities of it, I would CCW as I saw fit and enter places as I desired and enjoy myself also as I see fit. I would not hold a sign against a company or owner on temporary property as it may not reflect their opinions but have been a condition legal or not of the lease.

Most likely path to learning, research and apply to review a lease for a booth and see what it says, if you find it requires something you think illegal, seek counsel and sue to get it compliant.

My opinions on the topic, yours may vary, answers on such issues that are worth more require monies and licensed lawyers of your choosing.

Drinking and firearms are rarely a wise mix, that does not make it something that should be illegal, even stupid should be legal.

 

[OC for ME]

It may be nothing more complicated than the cops blocking the streets to normal motorized traffic. I'm not gunna over think this. Most of the streets are closed to vehicles yet have not Mardi Gras related activities. If a citizen/org could lease a public street then there is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[Redbaron007]

I am pretty sure , well no, I am positive I do not agree with the above.

If I lease property I am in control of that property, I believe it would be my choice in the matter as to allow or disallow carry upon it.

While we could debate the issue all day long, whether or not the CITY could regulate it is an entirely different debate. No I do not believe the city could make a blanket statement, however I have little doubt that they could make it a condition of said lease, they might be able to make it a condition of a temporary liquor license etc. Those are contractual agreements between the lease holder and the lessee which are entered into voluntarily, aka consent.

Only some pretty sharp lawyers are going to answer those questions.

The one thing that is clear, it is not a criminal act to carry into any of those locations or even to violate the signs, however clearly OC vs CCW is indeed going to make said violation of said sign or property owner/ lessee regulations and if they are anti will likely result in a police response.

Instead of concerning myself with the legalities of it, I would CCW as I saw fit and enter places as I desired and enjoy myself also as I see fit. I would not hold a sign against a company or owner on temporary property as it may not reflect their opinions but have been a condition legal or not of the lease.

Most likely path to learning, research and apply to review a lease for a booth and see what it says, if you find it requires something you think illegal, seek counsel and sue to get it compliant.

My opinions on the topic, yours may vary, answers on such issues that are worth more require monies and licensed lawyers of your choosing.

Drinking and firearms are rarely a wise mix, that does not make it something that should be illegal, even stupid should be legal.

So you can lease a park? Can you lease a blocked off street?

I struggle with one renting the public park/street that has no prohibited carry....then one says no carry...the park/street is public property....it doesn't become private property. As long as there are no buildings involved, I would like to see how it is done.

I concur........adult beverages and firearms do not make a great combination....similar to machinery operation and adult beverages......just don't mix well.

 

[F350]

IMO drinking and carrying should not be illegal.

In Missouri thanks to over reach by cops and a prosecutor the legislature changed the law; you can now be falling down drunk and as long as you do nothing stupid with you gun, no harm-no foul gun wise (not that I would recommend it). If the organizing organization is paying rent to the city I think they can bar weapons, this has been upheld of parks and buildings but not sure about streets. Plus in Missouri it is not criminal to ignore the signs, all they can do is ask you to leave.

 

[deepdiver]

I do not know if the streets can be rented for the period of the Mardi Gras given that there are residences also on those streets. I'll check with STLPD and see what they say and have them cite the ordinances and statutes that support a OC ban during the Mardi Gras time frame.

That would be fantastic! Very much look forward to reading their response.

 

[LMTD]

If a citizen/org could lease a public street then there is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Not sure what the problem is, it is not uncommon. Do you think for a second that the vendors serving the VP fair haven't paid a lease?

It could be semantics, but I believe Lease is the proper term. I know you can lease garden property owned by the city including fencing it off, I THINK when such things like block parties happen there is a lease involved which blocks the street (permits and leases both) and during large events, you don't get to just toss your tent up in the street, I believe it is a lease aka 10 x 10 for x dollars 20 x 30 for xx dollars which would be actual public property taken under private control for a short period of time (temporary use permit) such as renting the pavilions out at public parks.


During that usage I believe it would be a combination of regulations, both the city and the person/group taking temporary control of the property.

Opinions may vary, but I do not share your concern over the city leasing streets or other public property on tempoprary use permits or actually even long term use when applicable and for the greater good of the community.

 

[OC for ME]

...

Opinions may vary, but I do not share your concern over the city leasing streets or other public property on temporary use permits or actually even long term use when applicable and for the greater good of the community.

OK