• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

St. Louis Zoo: communication log + TRO filing/status + legal/financial help needed

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,350
Location
White Oak Plantation
Judge Richter did not opine correctly regarding RSMo 21.750.3, he intentionally left out the qualifier he cited in RSMo 21.750.3(2) which buttresses BB62's legal point. Page, Richter and Hess did not take the opportunity to "educate" Judge Moriarity properly.

RSMo 21.750.3(2) qualifies the permit requirement for OC if a jurisdiction uses 21.750.3(1) to regulate OC.

RSMo 21.750.3(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:

RSMo 21.750.3(2)(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
OC is legal with a permit in STL City and the zoo, even with the zoo considered a amusement park. The zoo is not private property.

RSMo 571.107 explicitly refers to concealed weapons. If the legislature intended to include OCing they have had several opportunities to clarify their intent prior to BB62's legal challenge.

In determining legislative intent, we give words used in the statute their plain and ordinary meaning. If the plain meaning would lead to an illogical result, we look past the plain language of the statute. - Richter (page 3 of the opinion.)
The judges, Richter specifically, looked past the ordinary meaning of the words in RSMo 21.750 and interpreted, incorrectly, legislative intent.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,017
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
If this is not finalized, what are the next steps?
Thanks for the question. It was on my list to ask my fantastic attorney yesterday, but I forgot to do so.

A status conference was held on July 12, and the Zoo has filed a motion for summary judgement.

Let's see, didn't they do that once before, only to have the appeals court say "No!"?

Our response is due by August 28.

Following my attorney's advice, that's all I can say at the moment.
 
Last edited:

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,017
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
**Nearly five years** since this matter started, on May 6, 2020 Judge Moriarty once again ruled against me/us following the Zoo's Motion for Partial Summary Judgement. The judge has not yet ruled on the Zoo's request for yet another restraining order.

Again, following my attorney's advice, that's all I can say at the moment.

I will post further information as I'm able/as approved by the wonderful Jane C. Hogan, attorney-at-law.

P.S. - if anyone knows how I can link to the judge's decision, please let me know, or if someone is willing to host it, I can supply someone with the file. Thank you.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,244
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
05/06/2020 Motion Granted/Sustained

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED THAT PLAINTIFF ZOOLOGICAL PARK SUBDISTRICT OF THE METROPOLITAN PARK MUSEUM DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT PLAINTIFF ZOOLOGICAL PARK SUBDISTRICT OF THE METROPOLITAN PARK MUSEUM DISTRICT (SAINT LOUIS ZOO) FITS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ONE OR MORE OF THE GUN FREE ZONES LISTED IN THE CARRY STAUTE, SPECIFICALLY SUBSECTIONS (10) AND (13) OF 571.107.1 RSMo, AND THE ZOO'S DESIGNATION AS A GUN FREE ZONE PROHIBITS VISTITORES, INCLUDING DEFENDANT JEFFRY SMITH, FORM ENTERING ZOO PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED OR OPENLY CARRIED FIREARM. SO ORDERED JUDGE JOAN MORIARTY
#33057
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,350
Location
White Oak Plantation
RSMo 571.107. Permit does not authorize concealed firearms, where — penalty for violation. — 1. A concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections...
Emphasis is mine. Permits for CC are not required. OC is not subject to the statute.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,350
Location
White Oak Plantation
The judge makes a reconstruction where none should have occurred in my view. Having a permit to OC, where RSMo 21.750.2 is invoked by a political subdivision, is not "connected" to RSMo 571.107.1.

"RSMo 571.107. Permit does not authorize concealed firearms, where — penalty for violation."

The "intent" of RSMo21.750.3 is clear and available for all to read in the legislative record...if you wish to go and dig it up...and the judge did not, or did and disagreed with the Jeff City critters restoring individual liberty a wee bit more...not uncommon for anti-individual liberty judges where restoring individual liberty is concerned. SB 656 data provided below.


The judge emphasizing on the permit and not the manner of carry, specifically delineated in the two statutes.

However, I believe regardless of this issue of fact, Smith was prohibited by law from carrying a weapon, openly or concealed, onto the Zoo's premises.
His opinion regardless of the facts (plain language in the statutes).

However, this does not end our analysis.
This nitwit should have stated "However, this does not we will (I will) not end our analysis...because we don't like folks carrying guns where folks can see them.

Where two statutes covering the same subject matter are unambiguous when read separately, but conflict when read together, we must attempt to harmonize the provisions and give effect to both.
Like Terry v. Ohio, these judges manufactured a harmonization out of thin air.

I will not go further because it will take the MoSC to decide this...and we know judges rarely hold their fellow judges accountable for their nitwittery.
 
Top