• 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.

Thoughts on suggesting a needed memo to law enforcement agencies on SB656

Firepit1x

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
16
Location
Labadie
I borrowed this from a Cincinnati Ohio Law Enforcement Memo and revised it and would love some more input on it. I would like to send a final draft to law enforcement agencies to suggest it become an official memo to their staff. I'm not willing to touch on Amendment 5 just yet.
I work for St. Louis County and have weekly contact with the police department and I would have no reservations on sharing it with them first.

LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMO ON OPEN CARRY OF A FIREARM IN MISSOURI:
With the passage of Missouri Senate Bill 656 Missouri law permits the open carry of a firearm if the person has a valid conceal carry permit with few exceptions. Citizens may openly carry firearms in public places unless there is a specific prohibition against carrying a firearm in that place
(police station, school safety zone, hospital, courthouse, etc..)
The possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition” is controlled only by state and federal law.
Local municipal laws may only regulate the discharge of firearms.

Therefore, officers should not charge individuals with violations of the any Municipal Code unless the ordinance deals with the discharge of a firearm.

Many people worry when they see someone openly carrying a gun. Officers can expect to receive calls when this happens. But, openly carrying a firearm, by itself, is not illegal. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer about seeing someone with a gun in public is probably not enough to support an investigative detention.

In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual. If the individual is doing nothing else that arouses suspicion, simply wearing a gun will not justify a detention.

It is important to note, open carry by itself also would not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses. If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm—and doing nothing else—the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support a charge.

Private businesses or property owners may prohibit all firearms on their property.
They may post signs prohibiting firearms or they may order a person to leave for such behavior. Criminal Trespass is the appropriate charge if a person is on private property in violation of such a prohibition.
 
Last edited:

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
You might want to make it correct first...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
First of all, political subdivisions may still regulate open carry. With that being the case, most of the rest of your post becomes untrue.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

9026543

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
509
Location
Southern MO
First of all, political subdivisions may still regulate open carry. With that being the case, most of the rest of your post becomes untrue.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Please explain in what way may they still regulate open carry.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
It's right there in the state statutes. Their ability to regulate it has been curtailed slightly, but it's still in there.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

Firepit1x

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
16
Location
Labadie
I disagree

First of all, political subdivisions may still regulate open carry. With that being the case, most of the rest of your post becomes untrue.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I respectfully disagree. The Senate Bill clearly states:

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

No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way.............


In case others would like to read:
http://legiscan.com/MO/text/SB656/2014
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
You're welcome to disagree with me. That doesn't make you right though. First of all. don't quote from unofficial sources, it reduces your credibility substantially.

The proper reference for SB656 is the following: http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/pdf-bill/tat/SB656.pdf You might wonder why I don't source the official website version of the statutes of the State of MO. Let's just say they're not famous for keeping those up to date. It should get there eventually, but isn't there now. Granted the Senate website and the GA website aren't official official either, but are more official than some 3rd party.

Secondly, you need to be careful with those ellipses, they can cover important information. You supplied a part of subsections 1 and 2, but the issue is in section 3. What you are missing is the following:

3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection,
14 nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political
15 subdivision
which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010
16 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open
17 carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms
18 within a jurisdiction,
provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of
19 section 252.243.

The bold is mine, and intended to draw your attention to the important bit. This text has not changed as part of SB656. The new part of the law relevant here is as follows:

25 (a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or
26 permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid
27 concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit
28 from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her
29 possession at all times;

So, for somewhere around 3% of the population, they can now open carry in places that prohibited it before. The other 97% or so is out of luck.

I respectfully disagree. The Senate Bill clearly states:

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

No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way.............


In case others would like to read:
http://legiscan.com/MO/text/SB656/2014
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
That's the rough estimate on the percentage of residents that have their CCW.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

Slowmo

New member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
18
Location
, ,
That's the rough estimate on the percentage of residents that have their CCW.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

yep

Its only the CCW holders that unrestricted. If you don't have a CCW you are still regulated by the municipalities.
 
Last edited:

Firepit1x

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
16
Location
Labadie
I think

I think the better course of action might be to share the link to the Ohio memo with other agencies.
If the agencies haven't put out a memo or policy change they can at least see or borrow what Ohio offered and I think it makes a bigger impact to see it on the official memo and not coming from the average citizen.
I may share more of my thoughts directly with St. Louis County since I'm an employee here.

Thanks for your input.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
I borrowed this from a Cincinnati Ohio Law Enforcement Memo and revised it and would love some more input on it. I would like to send a final draft to law enforcement agencies to suggest it become an official memo to their staff. I'm not willing to touch on Amendment 5 just yet. I work for St. Louis County and have weekly contact with the police department and I would have no reservations on sharing it with them first.

LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMO ON OPEN CARRY OF A FIREARM IN MISSOURI:
[strike]With the passage of Missouri Senate Bill 656[/strike] Missouri [strike]law[/strike] statutes RSMo 21.750.3 and 571.037 permits the open carry or, the brief open display of a concealed firearm if the person [strike]has[/strike] possesses a valid conceal carry [strike]permit[/strike] endorsement issued IAW RSMo 571.101 thru 571.121, or a valid concealed carry permit issued by another state which is recognized by this state, with [strike]few[/strike] exceptions listed in RSMo 571.107. [strike]Citizens may openly carry firearms in public places unless there is a specific prohibition against carrying a firearm in that place (police station, school safety zone, hospital, courthouse, etc..)
The possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition” is controlled only by state and federal law.
Local municipal laws may only regulate the discharge of firearms.

Therefore, officers should not charge individuals with violations of the any Municipal Code unless the ordinance deals with the discharge of a firearm.[/strike]


Many people worry when they see someone openly carrying a gun. Officers can expect to receive calls when this happens. But, openly carrying a firearm, by itself, is not illegal yes it is in some cities and towns. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer about seeing someone with a gun in public is probably not enough to support an investigative detention.

In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual. If the individual is doing nothing else that arouses suspicion, simply wearing a gun will not justify a detention.

It is important to note, open carry by itself also would not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses. If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm—and doing nothing else—the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support a charge.

[strike]Private businesses or property owners may prohibit all firearms on their property.
They may post signs prohibiting firearms or they may order a person to leave for such behavior. Criminal Trespass is the appropriate charge if a person is on private property in violation of such a prohibition.[/strike]
See mark-ups above.
 

Drytchnath

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
22
Location
, ,
Private businesses or property owners may prohibit all firearms on their property.
They may post signs prohibiting firearms or they may order a person to leave for such behavior. Criminal Trespass is the appropriate charge if a person is on private property in violation of such a prohibition.

While I may be wrong, it's my understanding that it's not trespassing to walk past a sign. The trespass comes into play when you are asked to leave by someone in charge of the establishment and refuse. This would mean a cop would have no authority to tell you to leave a store if a sign was posted, only management could. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
While I may be wrong, it's my understanding that it's not trespassing to walk past a sign. The trespass comes into play when you are asked to leave by someone in charge of the establishment and refuse. This would mean a cop would have no authority to tell you to leave a store if a sign was posted, only management could. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Depends on the language of the municipality.

+++++++

As I re-read your post, I think you're reference to trespassing is the 'No Guns' signage, correct? I was focusing on No Trespassing signs, not the No Guns signs. I don't disagree with your post in this reference.
 
Last edited:

Drytchnath

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
22
Location
, ,
From Chapter 571 Weapons Offenses Section 571.107 http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM

571.107. 1. A concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:

(15) Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry permit or endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry permit or endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry permit or endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;

2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, or a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense.

Note this only refers to concealed carry. Unless there is something else on the books then the signs would not refer to OCers at all, leaving only a trespassing charge if you were asked to leave and refused.
 

Drytchnath

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
22
Location
, ,
RSMo 571.107.1(15)...does anything strike you as odd regarding the wording? I mean "concealed means concealed" right? ;)

My entire point was the only mention of the signs in any law was for concealed carry, and even then walking past them with a concealed weapon is still not a crime. This was in response to the OP including in his 'memo' that it is trespassing to simply carry past a sign even if you are OCing.

In all honesty the no firearms signs are just a useless gesture that seem to make the ignorant feel secure. As if it's a physical deterrent to crime.

I was curious to see if I had missed something because I routinely carry past the signs, and while I have yet to be asked to leave a business for it, I would prefer to avoid legal issues.
 
Top