New to Missourri

[cshoff]

imported post

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote....

Except that nowhere in RSMO 563.011 does it define a vehicle as being an "extension of your home" (a camper would be a different story as it would clearly meet the definition of a "dwelling"). So you can keep on researching if you'd like, but I can tell you that our Castle Doctrine only talks about where and when you can use force and/or deadly force.

..........................

wrong. RSMO 563.011 says.....

(2) "Dwelling"[ means], any building[ or], inhabitable structure,[ though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being the actor's home or place of lodging.] or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

........................

conveyance as defined by Websters is "a means of conveying, esp a vehicle.

what more do you want? conveyance means your car/truck/motorcycle etc etc. if it moves you it counts.

Dude, do yourself a favor and quit before you butcher our statutes anymore than you already have.

Re-read my reply to ComSec above. Learning HOW to read statutes is just as important as actually reading them. You can't selectively use the parts of these definitions that suit your needs, you have to include the ENTIRE definition.

(2) "Dwelling"[ means], any building[ or], inhabitable structure,[ though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being the actor's home or place of lodging.] or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

seriously, tell me just what part of that is so hard to understand? i may not be highly educated but i do know how to read and comprehend the words and meanings.

and no, i won't give up.

I will explain this one more time.

The definition of "dwelling" in RSMO 563.011 specifically states that a dwelling is:

....any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

You have to read ALL of the definition. The word "and" that I bolded above means EVERYTHING. Your "conveyance" only qualifies as your dwelling if it is "designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night". There are no two ways about it whatsoever. Like I said, you cannot exclude words or parts of definitions simply because they don't suit your needs. If you were driving around in your RV or camper, you would be able to make a compelling argument under 563.011, but your pickup truck, your sedan, your convertible, or your sports car simply do NOT meet the requirements of this definition.

 

[Broondog]

imported post

i believe the word "or" as in "dwelling means.......or conveyance of any kind" is also quite operative in describing a common vehicle.

and why would we have all been told at the time of this bill becoming law that our personal vehicle was an extension of our home? was this to garner more fundage through fines or to fill our jails with more "useless" inmates?

 

[LMTD]

imported post

Broondog wrote:

and no, i won't give up.

On what?

Are we doing something here to improve OC in MO?

I have made a commitment to do that and not argue with folks whom are committed to that as well which is not my nature as is evident on these very boards but I am gonna try real hard to do it from here forward.

This is a new guy to our state, he does not know the history and fight that had to be fought. Lets not throw him on the "hell ya" wagon just yet.

To the OP, MO open carry remains fairly good but has some complexities to it. CCW is state law prevails It is good everywhere. OC does not yet have that and it is a pain near the larger cities. Some cities it is ok, others it is ok if you have ccw you can oc as well, others do not allow oc at all.

CCW applies everywhere while in your car permitted or not with age restrictions and ownership qualification. While there is an ongoing debate here and now, I am inclined to say CCW in your car might be best practice and by that I mean I would not have it laying on the dash or better said advertised. I would offer that advice not based upon law, but on the simple fact that car break ins within the cities are at an all time high and even someone seeing you put it into the trunk might get a misapplied crow bar.

Several things are being worked on to improve the laws in MO and the work and effort is tireless for many.

I would like to welcome you to Missouri and invite you to search this board a bit and learn about how to research the muni codes for cities you will frequent. It is not too hard and you can ask for assistance in finding any of them and some of the folks whom have developed a talent for that will gladly assist.

When we get frustrated it is often not the issue at hand, it is just frustration that even needs to be discussed because we are truly all on the same page here, when it comes to gun laws MO says NO and we are workin on reminding those in the legislature and judicial branches of this simple fact, we want what is good on this side of the street to be the same as the other and we want that answer to be FREEDOM.

Welcome aboard and join us in the effort!

 

[LMTD]

imported post

ComSec wrote:

touché :celebrate

(on that)

but im still convinced I can OC in my car, its my private property

Shhhhh

I kinda like that theory that it is in fact not your private property. <===edited party out lol

Perhaps you have not heard about it. Since the state of MO has property taxes on it, will seize it if you do not pay said tax, there are positions that is in fact state property and is in effect only rented to you because of this, thereby rendering property taxes unconstitutional as the state is granting you provisional ownership only.

Yeah its a stretch but it just might work!

 

[Broondog]

imported post

one last thing, from a lawyer this time.....

http://www.kljamisonlaw.com/updates.asp

As of 28 August, 2007 Missouri has a pure "Castle Doctrine" under RSMo 563.011 and 563.031. If an intruder is found in one's home the homeowner is entitled to believe that the intruder does not have his best interests at heart and can use force. If a person refuses to leave when told to, the license to remain is revoked and this may be considered unlawful entry. Under the applicable Missouri Approved Jury Instructions—Criminal 306.11 lethal force is allowed under the Castle Doctrine if “unlawful force” is threatened. The term “unlawful force” is not defined. It does not appear in the statute and seems to be an addition by the jury instructions committee. It does not say “deadly force” and therefore must mean a lesser threat. A "home" is broadly defined to specifically include tents and other temporary residences. It also includes vehicles.


my case is rested.

welcome frommycolddeadhands to Missouri. i hope you enjoy your new home and will join us in the fight for firearm law preemption. we are a spirited lot here and can always use more voices.

 

[cshoff]

imported post

Broondog wrote:

i believe the word "or" as in "dwelling means.......or conveyance of any kind" is also quite operative in describing a common vehicle.

and why would we have all been told at the time of this bill becoming law that our personal vehicle was an extension of our home? was this to garner more fundage through fines or to fill our jails with more "useless" inmates?

The word "or" has no bearing on the other qualifiers. The way it stands right now, your "conveyance" meets the criteria for a "dwelling" if it is "temporary or permanent", "mobile or immobile", BUT, in addition to any of those things, it MUST also have a "roof over it", AND be "designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night".

I don't know who sold you this bill by convincing you that it would make your vehicle an extension of your home, but the language clearly isn't there. Politicians have been known to say things that aren't necessarily true in order to garner votes and/or donations, it also happens that bills as proposed are often changed and amended before being passed.

Should your rights be the same in your vehicle as they are in your home? Heck yes! Those rights should extend to anywhere you are lawfully present, IMO, but those are legislative battles we've yet to wage and/or win.

 

[cshoff]

imported post

Broondog wrote:

one last thing, from a lawyer this time.....

http://www.kljamisonlaw.com/updates.asp

As of 28 August, 2007 Missouri has a pure "Castle Doctrine" under RSMo 563.011 and 563.031. If an intruder is found in one's home the homeowner is entitled to believe that the intruder does not have his best interests at heart and can use force. If a person refuses to leave when told to, the license to remain is revoked and this may be considered unlawful entry. Under the applicable Missouri Approved Jury Instructions—Criminal 306.11 lethal force is allowed under the Castle Doctrine if “unlawful force” is threatened. The term “unlawful force” is not defined. It does not appear in the statute and seems to be an addition by the jury instructions committee. It does not say “deadly force” and therefore must mean a lesser threat. A "home" is broadly defined to specifically include tents and other temporary residences. It also includes vehicles.


my case is rested.

welcome frommycolddeadhands to Missouri. i hope you enjoy your new home and will join us in the fight for firearm law preemption. we are a spirited lot here and can always use more voices.

Mr. Jamison is ONLY referring to your vehicle as it relates to the use of force in his opinion there (just like I said earlier in this thread). DO NOT construe that to mean that your vehicle is arbitrarily "an extension of your home". I can assure you that Mr. Jamison is well aware of how the law reads and what the limitations are which is exactly why he worded his opinion in the way he did.

 

[LMTD]

imported post

here is a story you might find funny!

My gal says to me, Honey what the heck are you doing on a Sunday night well actually at 1 am on a Monday morning when you have to work? I said I am on the computer, she said why?

I said "you wouldn't understand SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!"

Ok, that didn't really happen but I hope ya laughed

 

[cshoff]

imported post

LMTD wrote:

here is a story you might find funny!

My gal says to me, Honey what the heck are you doing on a Sunday night well actually at 1 am on a Monday morning when you have to work? I said I am on the computer, she said why?

I said "you wouldn't understand SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!"

Ok, that didn't really happen but I hope ya laughed

LOL. With that, I am going to go to bed. All in all, it's been a good conversation, despite the debate that's taken place. Good night all, and everyone have a safe day tomorrow.

 

[Reverend BCal]

imported post

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the peacable journey law?! Screw Castle Doctrine interpretation, screw mumbo jumbo speculation.

From Wikipedia:
Missouri

Peaceable journey and RV law
Missouri has a "peaceable journey" under Missouri Statutes 571.030 which law says it is legal to carry the weapon in a passenger compartment of a vehicle as long as (1) the concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, (2) the person is 21 or older, or (3) the person is in his dwelling unit (e.g. RV) or upon premises over which the person has possession/authority/control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state.
The same applies (it is not a crime) when the person is 21 and possesses an exposed firearm for the lawful pursuit of game.
Open carry
Missouri does allow open carry of firearms for those age 18 or older. However, city, county, and municipalities are allowed to pass laws and ordinances restricting this. It is advisable to check local laws and ordinances before openly carrying a firearm within Missouri.
Concealed carry
Missouri Statute 571.070 (8/28/2007) says that it is unlawful for a felon (also a drunkard, drug user, or adjudged incompetent Person) to have possession of any firearm (including concealable firearms). Violation of this law is a class C felony.
Missouri Statute 571.121 (8/28/2007) says (a) you have to carry permit with you when you carry the concealed weapon and if you don't have it with you, it's not a crime, but you can be fined up to $35, and (b) director of revenue issues a driver's license or a state I.D. with a CCW endorsement that reflects that you can carry concealed.

From MOGA:
3. Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply when the actor is transporting such weapons in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible or when such weapons are not readily accessible. Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person twenty-one years of age or older transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event.

Sorry. My bold and color buttons won't work on my phone, so I can't highlight the important parts, but we can all read.

First of all, (for those of you arguing about concealing the firearm) CONCEALED and CONCEALABLE are two completely different words. One's an act, the other an ability. As well, "passenger compartment" applies to anywhere a passenger may be held or seated or what have you. So, that is a STATE LAW providing you with the ABILITY to to carry openly or concealed in your vehicle because the actor is carrying in a "dwelling unit or upon premises over which the person has possession/authority/control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state."

 

[nrepuyan]

imported post

Reverend BCal wrote:

Screw Castle Doctrine interpretation, screw mumbo jumbo speculation.

so Missouri's Castle Doctrine is "mumbo jumbo speculation" and merely an "interpretation"

interesting...because i'm pretty sure it's not something speculated about and is in FACT in effect for this state...and i'd say it's anything but "mumbo jumbo"

very interesting indeed.

 

[cshoff]

imported post

Reverend BCal wrote:

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the peacable journey law?! Screw Castle Doctrine interpretation, screw mumbo jumbo speculation.

From Wikipedia:
Missouri

Peaceable journey and RV law
Missouri has a "peaceable journey" under Missouri Statutes 571.030 which law says it is legal to carry the weapon in a passenger compartment of a vehicle as long as (1) the concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, (2) the person is 21 or older, or (3) the person is in his dwelling unit (e.g. RV) or upon premises over which the person has possession/authority/control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state.
The same applies (it is not a crime) when the person is 21 and possesses an exposed firearm for the lawful pursuit of game.
Open carry
Missouri does allow open carry of firearms for those age 18 or older. However, city, county, and municipalities are allowed to pass laws and ordinances restricting this. It is advisable to check local laws and ordinances before openly carrying a firearm within Missouri.
Concealed carry
Missouri Statute 571.070 (8/28/2007) says that it is unlawful for a felon (also a drunkard, drug user, or adjudged incompetent Person) to have possession of any firearm (including concealable firearms). Violation of this law is a class C felony.
Missouri Statute 571.121 (8/28/2007) says (a) you have to carry permit with you when you carry the concealed weapon and if you don't have it with you, it's not a crime, but you can be fined up to $35, and (b) director of revenue issues a driver's license or a state I.D. with a CCW endorsement that reflects that you can carry concealed.

From MOGA:
3. Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply when the actor is transporting such weapons in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible or when such weapons are not readily accessible. Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person twenty-one years of age or older transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event.

Sorry. My bold and color buttons won't work on my phone, so I can't highlight the important parts, but we can all read.

First of all, (for those of you arguing about concealing the firearm) CONCEALED and CONCEALABLE are two completely different words. One's an act, the other an ability. As well, "passenger compartment" applies to anywhere a passenger may be held or seated or what have you. So, that is a STATE LAW providing you with the ABILITY to to carry openly or concealed in your vehicle because the actor is carrying in a "dwelling unit or upon premises over which the person has possession/authority/control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state."

Again, it is just as important to understand HOW statutes work as it is to actually read them. You are trying to say that RSMO 571.030.3 means something that it doesn't. 571.030.3 ONLY exempts you if you are 21 years of age or older and lawfully entitled to possess a firearm from RSMO 571.030.1 (1) which states that it is unlawful to carry

".....concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use".

That is the only exemption it provides. Furthermore, "Peaceable Journey", which is part of the same statute, ONLY exempts you from 571.030.1 (1) as well. It does NOT exempt you from open carry ordinances.

 

[Broondog]

imported post

so it seems that Cshoff is telling all of us that if we were to carry upon our person a sidearm in our vehicle in an open fashion, in say for instance Ste. Genevieve (which has an ordinance prohibiting OC), that we would be breaking the law.

is that right dude?

or is it that the same mode of carry in the same town in the same vehicle is considered CC? if that is the case then I would be breaking the law since i don't hold a CC permit.

 

[nrepuyan]

imported post

Broondog wrote:

so it seems that Cshoff is telling all of us that if we were to carry upon our person a sidearm in our vehicle in an open fashion, in say for instance Ste. Genevieve (which has an ordinance prohibiting OC), that we would be breaking the law.

is that right dude?

or is it that the same mode of carry in the same town in the same vehicle is considered CC?  if that is the case then I would be breaking the law since i don't hold a CC permit.

my understanding is that within your personal dwelling including your car you can OC CC ABC XYZ etc etc all you want if you meet the age requirements...now...as soon as you step out of your vehicle in a place OC is regulated and you are OC'ing...then you have problems...

 

[zekester]

imported post

(+1)

 

[Broondog]

imported post

nrepuyan wrote:

Broondog wrote:

so it seems that Cshoff is telling all of us that if we were to carry upon our person a sidearm in our vehicle in an open fashion, in say for instance Ste. Genevieve (which has an ordinance prohibiting OC), that we would be breaking the law.

is that right dude?

or is it that the same mode of carry in the same town in the same vehicle is considered CC? if that is the case then I would be breaking the law since i don't hold a CC permit.

my understanding is that within your personal dwelling including your car you can OC CC ABC XYZ etc etc all you want if you meet the age requirements...now...as soon as you step out of your vehicle in a place OC is regulated and you are OC'ing...then you have problems...

that is my understanding too, but cshoff is intent on spelling it otherwise.

 

[Reverend BCal]

imported post

Oh, man. Some people are just out for blood...

I never said that the Castle Doctrine was mumbo jumbo or mere speculation. I don't feel the need to elaborate further.

Are you 21? Bam. Legally able to own a firearm? Bam. Boo anti-OC city ordinances. Hooray car carry! State Law triumphs again.

 

[LMTD]

imported post

The exemption within the CCW law in 571 is there because prior to allowing CCW, a firearm that was readily accessible within the vehicle was considered to be concealed unless it was visible with normal methods.

That is why the gun in the rack in the window exist, it is not concealed but behind the seat was, but was not readily accessible but the pistol in the glove box did get you a concealed weapons charge. If the pistol was on the dash it was a source of great debate as it was sort of open carry so they could not stick you with a concealed weapons charge.

Castle law doctrine has nothing to do with this discussion really. It addresses the use of weapons not carry methods or storage at all. It protects the used in self defense and removes the previous requirement to retreat, you can pull your gun instead. Nothing more and nothing less.

Anyone, (Edit: that meets the criteria outlined in the law itself end edit), may CCW a firearm within their vehicle with out fear of being charged with concealing a firearm illegally as they could be in the past. If you are an OC person within the car, your firearm is concealed while you are in the car, you can not OC in a car unless you put the weapon on display in one of the windows. (Edit: meaning that a pistol in an open carry holster on your hip is concealed not open while you are in the car.)

If you do put it on display in one of the windows you may in fact be violating that muni's laws and be charged for it as a result. Whether or not it holds in court is a fine debate as it is indeed stored within your property but you might well have to fight it out and that would cost a buck or two.

Can we stop fussing about it yet?

If not, I give up as I think it makes all of us look bad.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

Well I'm learning more and more the older I get, Thanks for the heads up cshoff, I was under the impression that your vehicle was an extension of your home, and I would've bet money that OC was perfectly legal inside your vehicle in a locale where OC was prohibited in the general public..

 

[nrepuyan]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

Well I'm learning more and more the older I get, Thanks for the heads up cshoff, I was under the impression that your vehicle was an extension of your home, and I would've bet money that OC was perfectly legal inside your vehicle in a locale where OC was prohibited in the general public..

it is legal in your vehicle...according to lmtd tho...oc in your vehicle is really cc [cause it's out of site?]...unless you are driving with you waist pressed against your window? correct? so oc is oc out of your car but in your car oc is cc...so in essence it's still doesn't matter cause it's legal. oc in my car to me is still oc...if i don't gotta strip clothes halfway off to access it...it's considered oc to me. lol :lol::shock:

doing the aforementioned displaying your firearm in the window im not sure i'd do while driving lol...as it could land you with some sort of brandishing charge...and the popo LOVE brandishing charges.