• 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.

KC MO PD Sunshine Request Answer

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,003
Location
KC
What a jumbled up mess of documents.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
So I guess KCMO is not going to enforce OC regulations? Or are they going to use the new law to have a reason to approach an OCer and demand papers?
 

Renegadez

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Lees Summit
This is the part that bothers me as it says nothing of RAS

Q. If I am on patrol and observe a subject carrying a firearm openly on their hip
on a public sidewalk, can I stop them and run their information through a
records check?
A. Yes. The member may conduct an investigatory stop. The member should
use their best judgment in determining if the subject should be questioned
and released or other factors are involved and the subject should be placed
under arrest and transported to the appropriate detention facility.

BUT the next part down says NOT to Enforce Department Memorandum 14-04 which the ABOVE text was copied from note Daily informant is the KC MO PD daily newsletter in which the BELOW was copied from so it seems pretty clear to me that KC MO PD is to STAND DOWN and NOT enforce the OC KC City Council passed a few months ago.

September 12, 2014
Do NOTenforce BAN on 'Operi Carry'
In August the City of Kansas City amended Ordinance 50-261 to prohibit
openly carrying a firearm readily capable of lethal use. Due to recent action
by the Missouri General Assembly, that provision of Ordinance 50-261 is no
longer enforceable. For this reason, Department Memorandum 14-04
entitled "Open Carry of a Firearm" has been rescinded.
Members are reminded of the possibility that all subjects contacted at a
scene may be in possession of a firearm. Officers should use discretion and
their best judqrpent when making a determination on the best course of
action depending on the totality of the circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
This is the part that bothers me as it says nothing of RAS

Q. If I am on patrol and observe a subject carrying a firearm openly on their hip
on a public sidewalk, can I stop them and run their information through a
records check?
A. Yes. The member may conduct an investigatory stop. The member should
use their best judgment in determining if the subject should be questioned
and released or other factors are involved and the subject should be placed
under arrest and transported to the appropriate detention facility.

BUT the next part down says NOT to Enforce Department Memorandum 14-04 which the ABOVE text was copied from note Daily informant is the KC MO PD daily newsletter in which the BELOW was copied from so it seems pretty clear to me that KC MO PD is to STAND DOWN and NOT enforce the OC KC City Council passed a few months ago.

September 12, 2014
Do NOTenforce BAN on 'Operi Carry'
In August the City of Kansas City amended Ordinance 50-261 to prohibit
openly carrying a firearm readily capable of lethal use. Due to recent action
by the Missouri General Assembly, that provision of Ordinance 50-261 is no
longer enforceable. For this reason, Department Memorandum 14-04
entitled "Open Carry of a Firearm" has been rescinded.
Members are reminded of the possibility that all subjects contacted at a
scene may be in possession of a firearm. Officers should use discretion and
their best judqrpent when making a determination on the best course of
action depending on the totality of the circumstances.
The first document is from 8/20/14....prior to the override. The second set of docs is subsequently afterwards. The policy changed with the override. The first doc is basically worthless....it tells them what to do prior to SB656; the second is their thoughts after SB656 was overrode.
 

Oramac

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
572
Location
St Louis, Mo
The first document is from 8/20/14....prior to the override. The second set of docs is subsequently afterwards. The policy changed with the override. The first doc is basically worthless....it tells them what to do prior to SB656; the second is their thoughts after SB656 was overrode.
True, but it's so unclear in that doc that I bet a lot of officers will still be stopping people like it says they should in the earlier doc.
 

Renegadez

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
182
Location
Lees Summit
The first document is from 8/20/14....prior to the override. The second set of docs is subsequently afterwards. The policy changed with the override. The first doc is basically worthless....it tells them what to do prior to SB656; the second is their thoughts after SB656 was overrode.
Red Baron correct the first is actually a copy of DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM which is to be considered a legal document. The second is an informal article in the KC MO PD morning news letter folowed up by internal email saying DO NOT DO this I am not sure if any legal standing that has... As In hey Sarge i never got the memo.... So.. I busted this guy for carrying a firearm. I would have liked to seen alot clearer stance but it is what it is for now. I will file this in the wallet while OC'ing until something better comes along.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Probably nothing sinister actually. If I had to guess, it's probably just a bunch of email addresses or something like that.
What Oramac stated and/or info on current open cases.....nevertheless, redacted info usually raises an eyebrow about what is there but can't be seen. :uhoh:
 

Ohio

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
17
Location
Ohio
What a jumbled up mess of documents.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Page 5..."Would you please the officers in your division." ...maybe not a bad deal for the officers, depending on who is doing the pleasing.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,281
Location
White Oak Plantation
I received the info I request on open Carry in KC MO see attached PDF for info I received.
Request the info again, this time only the official department memo stuff, not any of that spam contained in the e-mail chain. Also, pose a question regarding the intoxicated folks can't possess a firearm as it relates to the actual statutes. It seems that everything past the second comma in RSMo 571.030.1(5) is ignored. Also, how do they square 571.030.1(5) with 571.030.5. What is the "policy" as it relates to private property.

Is there case law regarding the entirety of 571.030.1(5)? Any legal beagles out there?

Im gunna pose this question to my state rep and the future senator. I'll let ya know what the response is.
 
Top