New to Missourri

[frommycolddeadhands]

imported post

Great, thanks for your input everyone, it's a big help!

 

[cshoff]

imported post

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Broondog wrote:

frommycolddeadhands wrote:

cshoff wrote:

ComSec wrote: CONCEALED car carry is fine as long as you are at least 21 and lawfully entitled to possess the firearm in question, or if you meet the other criteria specified in RSMO 571.030.3. Cities and other jurisdictions can and do restrict openly carried firearms in a vehicle. I dare say that you would NOT want to try to drive through the city of St. Louis with a shotgun in a gun rack in the rear window of a pickup truck.

Ok, so just to make sure I got this right: If I simply want to get in my car and drive to Wal Mart or the grocery store, can I have a pistol holstered on my belt in an open carry manner, or do I need to conceal it inside a glove compartment until I get out of the car?

as far as i understand the law you may carry any way you see fit inside your vehicle per the MO Castle Doctrine, which makes your vehicle an extension of your home. CCW or OC is fine in your car but if you OC you should be aware of where you are and that areas municipal code about (or not about as the case may be) OC. you can have your pistol velcro'd to the dashboard if you see fit and it would be perfectly legal....maybe not wise, but legal.

Care to cite that law? The Castle Doctrine only extends your right to use force and/or deadly force to a vehicle in which you are lawfully present. It doesn't change local open carry restrictions. The same thing applies to property you own; you don't need a CCW permit to lawfully carry a concealed firearm on property you own in St. Louis City, but you best not walk around your front yard with your openly carried firearm or you will be in violation of City ordinances.

i asked you first but since you feel the need to dodge the question lets take a look at things.

yep MO Castle Doctrine makes your vehicle an extension of your home. http://www.learntocarry.com/docs/CastleDoctrine.html under 563.011 Sec 2. since carry of any sort is legal on/in property you own OC'ing is legal in your car.

this also makes OC in your front yard (being on property you own) perfectly legal no matter where it is. cities/towns/villages may only restrict OC on public property or property owned and operated by the govt. if STL City charges you with breaking the law for OC'ing on your own (private) property they would be breaking the law, not the property owner.

i answered you, your turn.

First off, you are posting a link that doesn't work, and if it did work, would be to a website that is neither an official state site, nor a site that provides legal opinions.

Regardless, St. Louis ordinance 15.130.040 explicitly prohibits openly carried firearms:

.... in any place of public accommodation or at any public gathering or on any public property, street or thoroughfare, shall carry on or about his person, any firearm, pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle or springback knife, or other weapon proscribed under Section 564.610 Missouri Revised Statutes, exposed in whole or in part to view.

While it may not be legal, and it certainly isn't Constitutional, it is being enforced by STL City police in vehicles and on private property. I know 2 people that, in recent years, have been cited for "openly carrying a firearm" by the city of St. Louis; one was a person with a .22 rifle in the gun rack in the back window of his pickup truck, the other was leaving the property of a relative while carrying a borrowed shotgun out to his vehicle. In both cases, fines of $100 were issued. So before you say it can't or won't happen, you better guess again, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if similar citations have been issued in other jurisdictions around the state.

Hey, if you have the time and resources to fight St. Louis on this, then more power to you. But I would never recommend to someone who is new to the state to come on down and be a guinea pig as a grand "welcome" the the show me state.

ETA - My "guess" is that the City of STL is using the words, "street or thoroughfare" in their ordinance as justification to enforce the law when someone has an exposed firearm in their vehicle.

 

[frommycolddeadhands]

imported post

I live down in the Warrensburg area out in a pretty rural area. (Standing on my front porch I can count perhaps 3 houses within seeing distance). I'm not a big fan of cities, and aside from an occassional trip into Warrensburg to pick up groceries or get gas I usually stay outside of city limits. I don't have any intention of putting a gun rack in the back window of my car (although that would be cool...) I just wanted to make sure that if I have a gun on my belt that I'd be legal to drive without separating the ammo from the firearm and all that, and that I wouldn't get into any problems getting in and out of my car at the store.

Like I mentioned, in ND I had to CC at night (which I thought was pretty silly, considering I especially want to have a firearm while traveling at night, and when my wife makes a midnight run to the store I feel a little better when she's armed, but I digress) Anyway, it seems that MO is a much more carry friendly state.

 

[ComSec]

imported post

its called abuse of power, does not mean they where in the right, SL is corrupt as hell as it is. Laws are LAWS, Rights are RIGHTS if you wont stick up for yours then yea its against the "law", if they didnt fight it then thats on them. Dont come in here telling us STORIES find the law to back you up, I have been researching MO OC Laws for years, and OC 24/7 I dont by it.......... your car is a extension of your home, and you can protect it as such, I CC/OC at home and in the car, I have had contact with LEOs in both that knew I was armed, never a problem more than the Officer Safety crap.

 

[ComSec]

imported post

frommycolddeadhands I grew up in Warrensburg and OC there often your not going to have any problem there.

 

[LMTD]

imported post

Before this grows into something like I would have created, can we take a slight break from it?

Open carry laws are in fact typically applied to public property, that is true. It is also true that law exist the same in TN, however didn't that case of the guy getting tackled and charged while mowing his own lawn?

My only point is, the spirit of the law when it applies to castle law is that you will not likely get sued if you shoot a car jacker.

It might be an interesting case that a rifle in a truck window rack would indeed not be openly carrying any different than a window in a home, but I think we can all agree it has not been tested as such so there is no case law to make a call from.

Everyone here is free to do as they wish, but I think when it comes to car/truck carry, out of sight from general view is the intent. I would also say that I think it could be in plain sight, but that might well have to proceed to court, IE arrested, jailed, charged, freed.

Might want a barrel full of fifties in the trunk or bed of that truck if you intend on being the test case.

We all support OC, there is likely no right answer on this one as it has not had a strong test so lets focus on fixing oc together instead of arguing things that sorta have no answer.

 

[Broondog]

imported post

cshoff wrote:

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Cities and other jurisdictions can and do restrict openly carried firearms in a vehicle.

please give a citation for this comment. i know of none so please Show Me.

You want to see what? St. Louis City's ordinance against open carry? Or do you want to see the State Statute that only preempts concealed carry of firearms?

what i want to see is a citation that makes OC inside your vehicle illegal.

If a firearm is inside your vehicle, and cannot be seen from the outside, it is not being openly carried. If, however, it is hanging in a gun rack in the rear window, it would be openly carried. So, do you want to see some ordinances from around the state that prohibit open carry?

when did we start talking about Bubba's shotgun in the window of his truck?

this is about OC of a handgun in holster. SHOW ME.

We are talking about openly carried firearms; shotguns, pistols, rifles, doesn't really matter what flavor you prefer. It appears that you are either intentionally being obtuse, or you genuinely just don't know the difference between open and concealed.

A shotgun, handgun, or rifle EXPOSED to outside view (such as in a gun rack, or as you mentioned, using "velcro" to attach it to the dashboard) would be subject to ordinances in jurisdictions that regulate open carry. A CONCEALED firearm (one attached to your body in a holster that CANNOT be seen from the outside of the vehicle) would NOT be subject to any local ordinances.

Now, would you like for me to show you some local ordinances around the state that restrict openly carried firearms?

i personally am talking about a handgun, in a vehicle, regardless of the location of said handgun. you can show me all the ordinances you want and it will make no difference. inside your vehicle, which is your property, you can legally carry a loaded concealable firearm anywhere in the state of Missouri.

i know what an ordinance looks like, i have many printed and carry them in my truck for when i am outside of said truck on public property where said ordinances take effect.

you are splitting hairs here man. this site deals with OC of handguns, not a shotgun on a rack. and if it did, that shotgun on the rack is legal too in this state as long as it is not loaded.

the city of St. Louis has probably the most restrictive laws of any city/town/village in our state. one might as well live in Illinois with all of the corruption and illegal use of power. but there are many, many more places in MO that are not like that. using STL City proper as an example of how it goes in MO is over the top. one place out of hundreds does not make it that way everywhere.

sorry about the link. it works for me. maybe this link will work and be official enough for you. SB62 from the 94th General Assembly 2007. http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=108

 

[cshoff]

imported post

ComSec wrote:

its called abuse of power, does not mean they where in the right, SL is corrupt as hell as it is. Laws are LAWS, Rights are RIGHTS if you wont stick up for yours then yea its against the "law", if they didnt fight it then thats on them. Dont come in here telling us STORIES find the law to back you up, I have been researching MO OC Laws for years, and OC 24/7 I dont by it.......... your car is a extension of your home, and you can protect it as such, I CC/OC at home and in the car, I have had contact with LEOs in both that knew I was armed, never a problem more than the Officer Safety crap.

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.

Here are the definitions as are used in RSMO 563. Perhaps you care to point out where it defines a vehicle as "an extension of your home"? :

[size="+1"]Chapter definitions. [/size] 563.011. As used in this chapter the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Deadly force", physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he or she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury;
(2) "Dwelling", 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;
(3) "Forcible felony", any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense;
(4) "Premises", includes any building, inhabitable structure and any real property;
(5) "Private person", any person other than a law enforcement officer;
(6) "Remain after unlawfully entering", to remain in or upon premises after unlawfully entering as defined in this section;
(7) "Residence", a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest;
(8) "Unlawfully enter", a person unlawfully enters in or upon premises when he or she enters such premises and is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her purpose, enters in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license unless he or she defies a lawful order not to enter, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of such premises or by another authorized person. A license to enter in a building that is only partly open to the public is not a license to enter in that part of the building that is not open to the public.

Yes, I'm sure STL is just as corrupt as any other major city, but face it, most folks are not going to spend the time or money it would take to fight a $100 fine. Right or wrong, it's just the way it is. If you don't want to believe "my stories", I don't really care. I have no compelling reason to lie to you or anyone else about a situation that happened to a friend of mine. If you want to slap your shotgun in your rear window rack and cruise around downtown STL, go for it.

 

[ComSec]

imported post

conveyance (kən-vāˈəns)
noun

1. The act of conveying.
2. A means of conveying, especially a vehicle for transportation.
3. Law a. Transfer of title to property from one person to another.b. The document by which a property transfer is effected.

 

[cshoff]

imported post

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Broondog wrote:

cshoff wrote:

Cities and other jurisdictions can and do restrict openly carried firearms in a vehicle.

please give a citation for this comment. i know of none so please Show Me.

You want to see what? St. Louis City's ordinance against open carry? Or do you want to see the State Statute that only preempts concealed carry of firearms?

what i want to see is a citation that makes OC inside your vehicle illegal.

If a firearm is inside your vehicle, and cannot be seen from the outside, it is not being openly carried. If, however, it is hanging in a gun rack in the rear window, it would be openly carried. So, do you want to see some ordinances from around the state that prohibit open carry?

when did we start talking about Bubba's shotgun in the window of his truck?

this is about OC of a handgun in holster. SHOW ME.

We are talking about openly carried firearms; shotguns, pistols, rifles, doesn't really matter what flavor you prefer. It appears that you are either intentionally being obtuse, or you genuinely just don't know the difference between open and concealed.

A shotgun, handgun, or rifle EXPOSED to outside view (such as in a gun rack, or as you mentioned, using "velcro" to attach it to the dashboard) would be subject to ordinances in jurisdictions that regulate open carry. A CONCEALED firearm (one attached to your body in a holster that CANNOT be seen from the outside of the vehicle) would NOT be subject to any local ordinances.

Now, would you like for me to show you some local ordinances around the state that restrict openly carried firearms?

i personally am talking about a handgun, in a vehicle, regardless of the location of said handgun. you can show me all the ordinances you want and it will make no difference. inside your vehicle, which is your property, you can legally carry a loaded concealable firearm anywhere in the state of Missouri.

i know what an ordinance looks like, i have many printed and carry them in my truck for when i am outside of said truck on public property where said ordinances take effect.

you are splitting hairs here man. this site deals with OC of handguns, not a shotgun on a rack. and if it did, that shotgun on the rack is legal too in this state as long as it is not loaded.

the city of St. Louis has probably the most restrictive laws of any city/town/village in our state. one might as well live in Illinois with all of the corruption and illegal use of power. but there are many, many more places in MO that are not like that. using STL City proper as an example of how it goes in MO is over the top. one place out of hundreds does not make it that way everywhere.

sorry about the link. it works for me. maybe this link will work and be official enough for you. SB62 from the 94th General Assembly 2007. http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=108

What sense would it make to not inform a newcomer to the state of the jurisdiction where he is most likely to encounter a problem?

And for the record, it makes no difference what "this site deals" with. An openly carried firearm is an openly carried firearm. Sounds like you are the one trying to split hairs here. The law views your openly carried 1911 in your hip holster just the same as it would a 870 slung over your back.

Also, I just posted RSMO 563.011 in my previous reply. Feel free to point out where it defines your vehicle as being "an extension to your home" as you claimed earlier.

 

[cshoff]

imported post

ComSec wrote:

conveyance (kən-vāˈəns)
noun

1. The act of conveying.
2. A means of conveying, especially a vehicle for transportation.
3. Law a. Transfer of title to property from one person to another.b. The document by which a property transfer is effected.

You are missing the relevant part of the statute as it relates to your conveyance:

......designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

Like I mentioned earlier, you would certainly have a case if you were driving around in your camper or RV, but you'll have a hard time convincing a judge or jury that your Ford Escort is "designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night".

 

[ComSec]

imported post

touché :celebrate

(on that)

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

 

[Broondog]

imported post

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;

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

[/b]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.

 

[cshoff]

imported post

ComSec wrote:

touché :celebrate

(on that)

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

And I would totally agree with you in spirit and under Article 1, Section 23 of Missouri's Constitution. Of course, I doubt that a STL City cop give's a rats behind what I think.

This is EXACTLY why we need state preemption on Open Carry. That would solve these stupid problems.

 

[cshoff]

imported post

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.

 

[ComSec]

imported post

well I stay the hell out of SL I consider it a part of IL its bad enough LOL but I talk for MO not SL LOL

 

[cshoff]

imported post

ComSec wrote:

well I stay the hell out of SL I consider it a part of IL its bad enough LOL but I talk for MO not SL LOL

I go there absolutely as little as possible. I actually have a good friend who is a detective with the STL City PD, but he doesn't do traffic stops or regular patrols. He deer hunts with me each fall. He has told me some stories about things that happen in STL that really make you scratch your head..........

 

[LMTD]

imported post

cshoff wrote:

This is EXACTLY why we need state preemption on Open Carry. That would solve these stupid problems.

Yes we do.

And I would kinda like to see not only your home and car but the "anywhere you are legally able to be"

And I would like to see no suppressor tax stamp and lots and lots of other things too.

Beating dead horses over laws and the misapplication to them not to mention the abuse of them all fall into the same pot, they don't fix em.


Can we shift the focus to that? Because frankly the only advice this person should follow is that of his own lawyer.

 

[cshoff]

imported post

LMTD wrote:

cshoff wrote:

This is EXACTLY why we need state preemption on Open Carry. That would solve these stupid problems.

Yes we do.

And I would kinda like to see not only your home and car but the "anywhere you are legally able to be"

And I would like to see no suppressor tax stamp and lots and lots of other things too.

Beating dead horses over laws and the misapplication to them not to mention the abuse of them all fall into the same pot, they don't fix em.


Can we shift the focus to that? Because frankly the only advice this person should follow is that of his own lawyer.

You're right. I probably shouldn't have allowed myself to be drug into this "debate".

 

[Broondog]

imported post

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.