• 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 Granted TRO against OC/CC Carry

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
BREAKING: Zoo Takes Legal Action to Block Gun Protesters
KMOX’s Kevin Killeen reports that the Saint Louis Zoo has asked the court for a temporary restraining order to block an open-carry gun event set for 1:30 p.m. Saturday.

The St. Louis police chief is scrambling to block the open-carry demonstration, saying that in his opinion, “more guns are never the answer.”
...

St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson says Missouri has some of the most liberal gun laws in the country, and it may allow an open-carry protest to happen inside the zoo.

Amendment 5, was passed in August 2014, establishes the “unalienable right of citizens to keep and bear arms, ammunition and accessories associated with the normal functioning of such arms, for the purpose of defense of one’s person, family, home and property.”
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/06/...-st-louis-zoo/

Links to the TRO/Petition for TRO and to Petition for Permanent Injunction from above story (for convenience)

https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.c...o-attached.pdf
https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.c...d-petition.pdf

Pretty broad challenge to almost everything I have read by those much more knowledgeable than I about RSMo 21.750 and RSMo 751 and their interaction. Looks like they are arguing that preemption mostly doesn't apply to them and that we can only OC where we can CC because preemption for OC over ordinance requires CC endorsement therefore that means can only OC where you can CC. Am I misreading this? And while the story addresses Amendment 5 I don't see it in the court filings. Throw it at the wall and see what sticks filing?
 
Last edited:

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
TRO language from Casenet:

Temporary Restraining Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,ADJUDGED AND DECLARED AS FOLLOWS: DEFENDANT SMITH(AND ANYONE ACTING IN CONCERT WITH HIM OR WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ORDER) IS HEREBY TEMPORARILY RETAINED AND ENJOINED, BEGINNING UPON THE FILINF OF A $10.00 CASH/SURETY BOND FROM ENTERING UPON SAINT LOUIS ZOO PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR ANY OTHER WEAPON CAPABLE OF LETHAL USE(WHETHER THE WEAPON IS POSSESSED OPENLY OR CONCEALED). THIS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGH THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 22,2015 COMMENCING AT 1:30 PM IN DIV 31 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS, OR AS OTHERWISE HEREAFTER ORDERED BY THE COURT SO ORDERED JUDGE JOAN L MORIARTY
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 22,2015 COMMENCING AT 1:30 PM IN DIV 31 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS.

Will there be counsel/attorney on both sides?
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
How does one go about getting an order like this if the the original posting is legal?
If the original posting and policy are not legal, then upon what basis would a judge determine that legal conduct should be prohibited?
It seems to me that there would be a presumption that the law should be followed unless there is risk to someone which is not adequately controlled by the existing law. There is no demonstrated no risk posed by this group to employees or visitors of the zoo. Thus, they will apparently violate the law for 10 more days with judicial consent with no real justification.

I am watching closely since the Dallas Zoo is likely to follow the same course if we push the issue.

Wouldn't it be a shame if the legislatures simply enact laws making the zoos follow the rules for all other public property?
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 22,2015 COMMENCING AT 1:30 PM IN DIV 31 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF SAINT LOUIS.

Will there be counsel/attorney on both sides?

According to Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 23, there should be someone on our side:

Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/ConstHTML/A010231.html

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
 

BriKuz

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
201
Location
Springfield, MO
I am writing an email and letter to the MO Attorney General. By current Constitutional Law, his office is REQUIRED to help us with this issue, as it is an infringement upon upon our rights as spelled out in the MO Constitution. I would suggest that others do the same...

WE don't need to spend the money for private attorneys, our State has set forth that it is the State's job to prevent a subdivision from from infringing.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I am writing an email and letter to the MO Attorney General. By current Constitutional Law, his office is REQUIRED to help us with this issue, as it is an infringement upon upon our rights as spelled out in the MO Constitution. I would suggest that others do the same...

WE don't need to spend the money for private attorneys, our State has set forth that it is the State's job to prevent a subdivision from from infringing.
Please cite where AG is required to help you. The AG is the state's lawyer, not yours - that office does not give legal advice to citizens.
[h=1]AG OPINIONS[/h] By statute, state legislators, statewide elected officials, state department heads and county prosecuting attorneys are entitled to legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office. An Attorney General’s opinion is thus a written public document responding to a specific legal question asked by a public official. All opinions have been reviewed by the Opinions Section and represent the highest standards of research. An Attorney General’s opinion attempts to resolve questions of law as the author believes a court would decide the issue. Unlike a court, however, Attorney General opinions cannot decide factual disputes.
https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
See the other article, the state is required to defend our 2A rights by our constitution.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

redhawk44

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
53
Location
Wheatland, MO
Please cite where AG is required to help you. The AG is the state's lawyer, not yours - that office does not give legal advice to citizens.
[h=1]AG OPINIONS[/h] By statute, state legislators, statewide elected officials, state department heads and county prosecuting attorneys are entitled to legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office. An Attorney General’s opinion is thus a written public document responding to a specific legal question asked by a public official. All opinions have been reviewed by the Opinions Section and represent the highest standards of research. An Attorney General’s opinion attempts to resolve questions of law as the author believes a court would decide the issue. Unlike a court, however, Attorney General opinions cannot decide factual disputes.
https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions

Which begs the question; Why didn't the Zoological officials solicit an opinion from the AG, when first contacted? I think we know the answer!

"An Attorney General’s opinion is thus a written public document responding to a specific legal question asked by a public official".
 
Last edited:

logunowner

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
219
Location
Lake Ozark, Mo
I'm willing to learn.....show me the cite(s) - black letter law (statute) or court cases of record.

http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)

The following is the changes to the Missouri Constitution in August of 2014

Constitutional changes
See also: Section 23, Article I, Missouri Constitution
The measure amended Section 23 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution to read as:[1]

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.
 

redhawk44

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
53
Location
Wheatland, MO
http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)

The following is the changes to the Missouri Constitution in August of 2014

Constitutional changes
See also: Section 23, Article I, Missouri Constitution
The measure amended Section 23 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution to read as:[1]

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Passed by over a 60 percent vote by the participating informed Missouri electorate.


http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/ConstHTML/A010231.html
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I'm willing to learn.....show me the cite(s) - black letter law (statute) or court cases of record.

http://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Right_to_Bear_Arms,_Amendment_5_(August_2014)

The following is the changes to the Missouri Constitution in August of 2014

Constitutional changes
See also: Section 23, Article I, Missouri Constitution
The measure amended Section 23 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution to read as:[1]

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Passed by over a 60 percent vote by the participating informed Missouri electorate.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/ConstHTML/A010231.html
Gentleman - I sincerely believe you are erroneously applying this to your Attorney General being required to defend you in court.......and that it not a valid cite. I asked for a statute (black letter law) and/or case law supporting your opinion.

Carrying your opinion forward would then negate ever having to hire a private attorney to defend someone from legal use of a firearm as the AG/state would provide the defense. Good luck with that.

How would such a court case read? The State of Missouri v. The State of Missouri :confused:
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
Gentleman - I sincerely believe you are erroneously applying this to your Attorney General being required to defend you in court.......and that it not a valid cite. I asked for a statute (black letter law) and/or case law supporting your opinion.

Carrying your opinion forward would then negate ever having to hire a private attorney to defend someone from legal use of a firearm as the AG/state would provide the defense. Good luck with that.

How would such a court case read? The State of Missouri v. The State of Missouri :confused:
The State of Missouri v The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District

Whereas the The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District has infringed upon the preemption of the State of Missouri acting by and through the duly elected general assembly in the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, et al as codified in RSMo 21.750.1 and 21.750.2 and whereas The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District having been created under RSMo 184.350 and deriving its authority to pass and implement rules and regulations under RSMo 184.362 is not authorized under such authority to pass any ordinance and therefore cannot claim any exception to preemption under RSMo 21.750.3, and as such the infringement is blatant and egregious upon the authority of the State of Missouri acting by and through the general assembly and therefore the Attorney General of the State of Missouri does hereby ask that this court permanently enjoin and prohibit the The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District from implementing any rule or scheme which infringes upon said preemption including, but not limited to, removing any signage prohibiting any firearm or other weapon covered under RSMo 21.750 or RSMo 571, from threatening or actually causing removal or exclusion from zoo property of any citizen lawfully carrying such weapons and further to overturn the Temporary Restraining Order issued in St. Louis City Court against Jeff Smith, et al as well as rejecting in its entirety the corresponding Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction against such person(s) as each and all do or will violate RSMo 21.750 and RSMo 571.

21.750. 1. The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

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.

3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.


I'm thinking it would go something like the above. :cool:

IANAL and the above is only a conceptualization responding the Grapeshot's question. I make no claim that the manner or style as set out is sufficient, legal or proper under the local rules of any MO court so please do not read anything more into it than that and criticize based on it not meeting some court petitioning something or other.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Whew. Pretty good conceptualization there. I dont know if MO courts allow for citing of other states cases, but here in MI we had a similar deal with the Capitol Area District Library. The courts found that since the CADL is tax funded and was created by local units of govt, they fell under MI's preemption and they couldnt enforce their policy. The law you have seems to read the same way except for the "political subdivision" part. I can see them trying to argue that label.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The State of Missouri v The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District

Whereas the The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District has infringed upon the preemption of the State of Missouri acting by and through the duly elected general assembly in the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, et al as codified in RSMo 21.750.1 and 21.750.2 and whereas The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District having been created under RSMo 184.350 and deriving its authority to pass and implement rules and regulations under RSMo 184.362 is not authorized under such authority to pass any ordinance and therefore cannot claim any exception to preemption under RSMo 21.750.3, and as such the infringement is blatant and egregious upon the authority of the State of Missouri acting by and through the general assembly and therefore the Attorney General of the State of Missouri does hereby ask that this court permanently enjoin and prohibit the The St. Louis Zoo Subdistrict of the St. Louis Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District from implementing any rule or scheme which infringes upon said preemption including, but not limited to, removing any signage prohibiting any firearm or other weapon covered under RSMo 21.750 or RSMo 571, from threatening or actually causing removal or exclusion from zoo property of any citizen lawfully carrying such weapons and further to overturn the Temporary Restraining Order issued in St. Louis City Court against Jeff Smith, et al as well as rejecting in its entirety the corresponding Petition for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction against such person(s) as each and all do or will violate RSMo 21.750 and RSMo 571.

21.750. 1. The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

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.

3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance shall be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.


I'm thinking it would go something like the above. :cool:

IANAL and the above is only a conceptualization responding the Grapeshot's question. I make no claim that the manner or style as set out is sufficient, legal or proper under the local rules of any MO court so please do not read anything more into it than that and criticize based on it not meeting some court petitioning something or other.
On that level we are in complete agreement - the state and AG requiring municipalities, political subdivisions, etc to honor the preemption of gun laws/rules.

Still that is not the AG acting as an individual's defense attorney.
 
Top