Does Missouri Revised Statute 571-030 contradict itself?
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Does Missouri Revised Statute 571-030 contradict itself?

  1. #1

    Does Missouri Revised Statute 571-030 contradict itself?

    I'm referring to 571-030 section (1) (8), and (10).
    571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
    (1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use
    (8) Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where people have assembled for worship, or into any election precinct on any election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof
    (10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board
    Section 4 (below) states that 1, 8, and 10 above don't apply to CCW permit holders.

    4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.
    But then, later on in the MRS, section 20 lists places where concealed carry is not legal even with CCW endorsement.

    (2) Within twenty-five feet of any polling place on any election day. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the polling place 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;
    (14) Any church or other place of religious worship without the consent of the minister or person or persons representing the religious organization that exercises control over the place of religious worship. 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
    Please, someone, explain this to me.
    Last edited by weekendskp; 01-12-2011 at 04:52 PM. Reason: added another section that contradicts first part.

  2.   
  3. #2

    This Might Help You.

    Kevin L. Jamison, Attorney At Law | Author

    This section is about half way down the page
    Places Cannot Carry

  4. #3
    Dave,
    Thank you for the response. I have read Attorney Jamison's page before, and have it bookmarked in my favorites. I try to error on the side of caution, and if MRS 571-030 says don't carry in "X", I'm not going to, but I wanted someone to try to explain why there is contradiction in the revised statute itself. Have you read subsection 4? IMO, it states if one has a CCW, then 1, 8, and 10 don't apply.

  5. #4

    No contradiction--substantially different penalties apply

    Carrying a firearm in a place listed in RSMo 571.030(1)(8) is a Class B misdemeanor. However, CCW endorsement holders are exempt.

    Carrying a firearm in a place listed in RSMo 571.030(1)(10) is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm is unloaded or a Class D felony if the firearm is loaded. However, CCW endorsement holders are exempt.

    RSMo 571.107(1) lists 17 places where CCW endorsement holders may not carry a concealed firearm. It does not affect open carry (although local ordinances may apply). However, RSMo 571.107(2) provides:
    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 endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 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 . . . .
    Essentially, a Missouri's list of places of limits for concealed carry is a paper tiger. As long as you are not caught carrying a concealed firearm, asked to leave, and refuse to leave, no crime is committed. The only real jeopardy a person faces is employment-related disciplinary measures or academic sanctions from an educational institution. Only if a CCW endorsement holder is dumb enough to repeatedly violate the statute (which, again, does not occur until you are caught and refuse to comply with a demand to leave) will the person face any serious penalties.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Attorney, The Law Offices of James M. Mullins, Jr., PLLC
    Founder and Past President, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

  6. #5
    Jim,
    What's your opinion of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995? The Second Amendment Foundation indicated that they would tackle it at some point, but had bigger fish to fry currently. Does the average Joe need to worry that in travels out of ones home State, he/she might pass within 1000' of a school while in his vehicle?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by weekendskp View Post
    Jim,
    What's your opinion of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995? The Second Amendment Foundation indicated that they would tackle it at some point, but had bigger fish to fry currently. Does the average Joe need to worry that in travels out of ones home State, he/she might pass within 1000' of a school while in his vehicle?
    This is a legaly dicey issue--and a controversial one in various threads throughout this forum. As an attorney, I obviously must counsel compliance with the law (however absurd the law may be). With that said, the federal GFSZA is enforced with a tremendous amount of discretion. There are plenty of post-Lopez cases in which various Courts of Appeals have affirmed the constitutionality of the statute as it was revised by Congress in 1995 (to include a "Commerce Clause jurisdictional element" that was absent before Lopez and on which the Supreme Court's decision turned).

    In practice, I have not yet seen a case involving an otherwise law-abiding citizen whose ONLY crime was a federal GFSZ violation. Every case I have seen involved a drug dealer; gang member; someone who could not legally possess a gun under either federal, state, or territorial law; someone who was strongly suspected of committing some other crime where the evidence fell just short of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law; or (in the case of U.S. v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000)) where the government attempted to challenge both whether a convicted felon had his civil rights restored (he did) and whether Alabama's skeletal concealed pistol permitting statute required an adequate background check to meet the federal law's exception (it did; subsequently, the Alabama Legislature did enact a new background check provision that further solidifies Alabama's position).

    As a practical matter, if the federal government started seeking out individuals who were carrying handguns in other states under reciprocity laws (or open carry or constitutional carry laws), were committing no violation of the applicable state's gun laws, and were not involved in any demonstrable criminal activity, we would see a rightful outcry of protests demanding either a full repeal of the federal GFSZA or elimination of the additional 1000-foot buffer and/or expanding the "permit exception" to accommodate widespread state reciprocity laws that did not exist when that exception was originally written in 1990 (at that time, only Indiana and Michigan recognized other states' permits; no other state recognized any permits issued by any other state).

    If a person is a frequent traveler to a particular state and that state issues a nonresident license, I would advise that obtaining that state's license is a good investment.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Attorney, The Law Offices of James M. Mullins, Jr., PLLC
    Founder and Past President, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

  8. #7
    Jim,
    Do you support any organizations like SAF or NRA? I don't know about you, but I read these forums to gain information, and share ideas, but after one has responded to the survey about carrying condition one for the tenth time, there's not a lot of intellectual exchange. It's nice to get a well thought out reply.

    I've emailed the folks at SAF several times now, and I'm beginning to think I wasted my $50 for membership. A few months ago, they got right back to me when I asked them questions or made requests (donation to membership change), but now they won't even acknowledge a request for address change. Can you believe this, my employer after 13 years recently said that I was not to receive any personal items at work? But, that's another story. SAF's Web page has not changed in months, and the membership is nothing more than a mailing list of requests for more money.

    The NRA is much more professional, but I'm disgusted with them because they sold the other gun rights organizations down the river. We need every dollar, and every organization devoted to the cause. I believe the gun grabbers will use the Arizona tragedy to the fullest extent. Have a great weekend! :)

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ozark Foothills of Southern Missouri
    Posts
    63

    Cool Murky Waters...

    Quote Originally Posted by weekendskp View Post
    Jim,
    Do you support any organizations like SAF or NRA? I don't know about you, but I read these forums to gain information, and share ideas, but after one has responded to the survey about carrying condition one for the tenth time, there's not a lot of intellectual exchange. It's nice to get a well thought out reply.

    I've emailed the folks at SAF several times now, and I'm beginning to think I wasted my $50 for membership. A few months ago, they got right back to me when I asked them questions or made requests (donation to membership change), but now they won't even acknowledge a request for address change. Can you believe this, my employer after 13 years recently said that I was not to receive any personal items at work? But, that's another story. SAF's Web page has not changed in months, and the membership is nothing more than a mailing list of requests for more money.
    The NRA is much more professional, but I'm disgusted with them because they sold the other gun rights organizations down the river. We need every dollar, and every organization devoted to the cause. I believe the gun grabbers will use the Arizona tragedy to the fullest extent. Have a great weekend! :)
    Weekendskp;

    I was going to answer your original question, but before leaping, read up on the statutes and re-read Jamison's page, then Jim's response was essentially what I had come to believe...

    As to the SAF, and the CCRKBA (which are made up of the same people) are generally in it to maintain a good living, off your donations. Don't get me wrong, they do some good legal work, which does require a lot of money to keep going, hence the donation requests keep coming out to you (and me). I don't believe that they are a "Club" that wants to 'service' their members, they want people who require little service and are willing to donate whenever asked to do so. That said, McDonald would have not gotten done without them, the NRA had withdrawn their action and submitted a 'friend of the court' submission in support of McDonald.

    It is MURKY WATERS that we find ourselves here!

    ~John
    Last edited by JPKirkpatrick; 02-11-2011 at 05:24 PM. Reason: Add Signature
    JPKirkpatrick
    USAF-Ret; NRA Life; CRPA Life; USA Carry Mbr;
    Oath Keepers Chrtr Mbr; USCCA Mbr; HGCA Mbr; Ret Former LEO

  10. #9
    John,

    As a former LEO, did you make traffic stops in a State that allowed conceal carry? Does your State require notification? I know there's a long thread on "inform or not", but I'd like your opinion, which you may have already, or not, contributed to that rather lengthy discussion. I've had an epiphany in matters regarding the police, and had I been knowledgeable about my rights ten years ago, I wouldn't have been arrested for the offense of which I was charged. Or more precisely, the charges would've been dropped because the arresting officer violated my civil rights. I have friends that are LEO, but if one of them stopped me today, I wouldn't give them any more info than DL and vehicle registration.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  11. Quote Originally Posted by WVCDL View Post
    Carrying a firearm in a place listed in RSMo 571.030(1)(8) is a Class B misdemeanor. However, CCW endorsement holders are exempt.

    Carrying a firearm in a place listed in RSMo 571.030(1)(10) is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm is unloaded or a Class D felony if the firearm is loaded. However, CCW endorsement holders are exempt.

    RSMo 571.107(1) lists 17 places where CCW endorsement holders may not carry a concealed firearm. It does not affect open carry (although local ordinances may apply). However, RSMo 571.107(2) provides:


    Essentially, a Missouri's list of places of limits for concealed carry is a paper tiger. As long as you are not caught carrying a concealed firearm, asked to leave, and refuse to leave, no crime is committed. The only real jeopardy a person faces is employment-related disciplinary measures or academic sanctions from an educational institution. Only if a CCW endorsement holder is dumb enough to repeatedly violate the statute (which, again, does not occur until you are caught and refuse to comply with a demand to leave) will the person face any serious penalties.
    Please allow me to clarify this a bit, just in case someone might be confused in how it's worded above. It shall not be a crime if you're caught carrying in one of the locations limited by the State statute (you can be charged if it violates Federal law) and you certainly don't need to be caught carrying to be told to leave. Once you're told to leave, do so, if you refuse you're trespassing.

    Important note: Public buses are not on that list, but there is a bus hijacking statute that says we cannot carry on a public bus either. RSMO 578.305
    Section 578-305 Bus hijacking, definition, penalty--ass

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast