No EMPTY Gun Holsters Allowed In St.Louis Zoo!

[deepdiver]

(my bold above)

First, marshaul raises the subject with no basis, then you comment on it? :banghead:

Let me make something perfectly clear - if there is to be an event at the Zoo, I will likely be the organizer of it, and long guns will not be invited.

Furthermore, and depending how my future conversations with Chief Dotson go (he called me yesterday), it's quite possible that this will be an EMPTY HOLSTER event. I may very well ask people to respect the fact that Peyton and I will be the only people will full holsters. It's all about presentation, you know?

On another subject, no doubt perceptive people have already noticed that Peyton got no mention in the TV report - and it's not because I didn't give the full story of how things developed. I know readers here are shocked, yes SHOCKED, that a member of the press decided to do the "outside agitator" angle, rather than the full story.

+1

As you highlighted, I was commenting as to an earlier comment on long guns and I much appreciate your later posting about this being nuanced.


Further, as to whether the zoo can post signage as to CC, 571.107.6
(6) The general assembly, supreme court, county or municipality may by rule, administrative regulation, or ordinance prohibit or limit the carrying of concealed firearms by permit or endorsement holders in that portion of a building owned, leased or controlled by that unit of government. Any portion of a building in which the carrying of concealed firearms is prohibited or limited shall be clearly identified by signs posted at the entrance to the restricted area. The statute, rule or ordinance shall exempt any building used for public housing by private persons, highways or rest areas, firing ranges, and private dwellings owned, leased, or controlled by that unit of government from any restriction on the carrying or possession of a firearm. The statute, rule or ordinance shall not specify any criminal penalty for its violation but may specify that persons violating the statute, rule or ordinance may be denied entrance to the building, ordered to leave the building and if employees of the unit of government, be subjected to disciplinary measures for violation of the provisions of the statute, rule or ordinance. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any other unit of government;

Further research indicates the zoo is likely a separate political subdivision not enumerated in 571.107 as having authority to post signage to restrict CC but there are other statutes maybe at play.OC is yet a different issue moved to non-public for now.

Edit: Needed to be more circumspect

 

[BB62]

Check your PM's deepdiver.

 

[Grapeshot]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...7-847a-590e9634b65f.html#.VXYCEbm6VbQ.twitter

The money quote: "The statement said the zoo's weapons ban also relies on "numerous state statues(sic)" including several provisions of state statute 571.107 "that support our position that weapons are prohibited." The statement did not specify which parts of the law applies to the zoo."

Kinda like multiple shots in the dark hoping to hit something...........and get away with it.

 

[357SigFan]

Getting back to the OP, when the 'guard' told Peyton to leave or the police would be called and he charged with trespass, how did they REALLY think they could charge him with trespass? It's one thing if he had his firearm and was ordered to leave or else (not saying I agree with it or the signage or that it's even legal), but he had an EMPTY HOLSTER. That is NO DIFFERENT from having a phone or bottle of soda. That bottle of soda could be more of a weapon if needed than the holster...

 

[Peyton]

Getting back to the OP, when the 'guard' told Peyton to leave or the police would be called and he charged with trespass, how did they REALLY think they could charge him with trespass? It's one thing if he had his firearm and was ordered to leave or else (not saying I agree with it or the signage or that it's even legal), but he had an EMPTY HOLSTER. That is NO DIFFERENT from having a phone or bottle of soda. That bottle of soda could be more of a weapon if needed than the holster...

That's real!^^

 

[deepdiver]

I think the OP did the right thing at that juncture in leaving. Wasn't the place and time to argue the matter.

 

[redhawk44]

I think the OP did the right thing at that juncture in leaving. Wasn't the place and time to argue the matter.

And I would bet that the decision to threaten trespass in this particular case, was not made at the "street" level. It came from an anti-gun directive from a supervisor or management.

 

[redhawk44]

Getting back to the OP, when the 'guard' told Peyton to leave or the police would be called and he charged with trespass, how did they REALLY think they could charge him with trespass? It's one thing if he had his firearm and was ordered to leave or else (not saying I agree with it or the signage or that it's even legal), but he had an EMPTY HOLSTER. That is NO DIFFERENT from having a phone or bottle of soda. That bottle of soda could be more of a weapon if needed than the holster...

A citation can be issued via a complainant request and signature. The old "you can indict a ham sandwich" thing. There are those who believe that this case is a private property issue and the issue of an empty holster falls under a inappropriate dress code decision or "public alarm". Very flimsy, and would probably be dropped later by complainant request, dismissed in court or found not guilty. However, the Zoo got what they wanted, the person leaving. Then a civil suit is warranted, or a settlement, with the taxpayer footing the bill, usually via high insurance rates paid by the Zoo authority.

Now, let us contemplate a next step scenario.

A man, his wife and child, living in Springfield, Mo., hop on I44 to Saint Louis, Mo., (SL), for a day a day at the SL Zoo. Having arrived safely, they approach the entry area and, being a good citizen, the man reads the rules and regulations of the Zoo.

He notices a “No Firearms” rule, and, legally possessing on his person, a firearm via scrutiny of his county sheriff, the state of Missouri and the FBI, he is a good citizen and neighbor, and returns to his automobile to secure his firearm.

Once inside, the man sees Zoo security, so he approaches and inquires about the “No Firearms” rule. The Zoo security basically advises of their reasons and authority (whatever they are). The man then says something to the effect that he was under the impression that the Zoo grounds were public property, subject to state preemption.

At this, the body language, tone and attitude of Zoo security take a complete 180. One Zoo official immediately asks the man if he is armed, to which the man says ‘No’, I put my weapon back in my car once I saw the rule. So you have a firearm in your car? Yes sir, the man says. The two Zoo guards converse, talk on the radio momentarily and return to the man and advise him he must leave the park. The man asks for an explanation to which he is told, if he does not leave immediately, the police would be called and he would be cited for trespassing.

Ya think this is possible or just a paranoid fairytale.

 

[BB62]

I'm to be interviewed this afternoon @ 2:20 PM on KMOX radio, 1120 AM

 

[Grapeshot]

A citation can be issued via a complainant request and signature. The old "you can indict a ham sandwich" thing. There are those who believe that this case is a private property issue and the issue of an empty holster falls under a inappropriate dress code decision or "public alarm". Very flimsy, and would probably be dropped later by complainant request, dismissed in court or found not guilty. However, the Zoo got what they wanted, the person leaving. Then a civil suit is warranted, or a settlement, with the taxpayer footing the bill, usually via high insurance rates paid by the Zoo authority.

Now, let us contemplate a next step scenario.

A man, his wife and child, living in Springfield, Mo., hop on I44 to Saint Louis, Mo., (SL), for a day a day at the SL Zoo. Having arrived safely, they approach the entry area and, being a good citizen, the man reads the rules and regulations of the Zoo.

He notices a “No Firearms” rule, and, legally possessing on his person, a firearm via scrutiny of his county sheriff, the state of Missouri and the FBI, he is a good citizen and neighbor, and returns to his automobile to secure his firearm.

Once inside, the man sees Zoo security, so he approaches and inquires about the “No Firearms” rule. The Zoo security basically advises of their reasons and authority (whatever they are). The man then says something to the effect that he was under the impression that the Zoo grounds were public property, subject to state preemption.

At this, the body language, tone and attitude of Zoo security take a complete 180. One Zoo official immediately asks the man if he is armed, to which the man says ‘No’, I put my weapon back in my car once I saw the rule. So you have a firearm in your car? Yes sir, the man says. The two Zoo guards converse, talk on the radio momentarily and return to the man and advise him he must leave the park. The man asks for an explanation to which he is told, if he does not leave immediately, the police would be called and he would be cited for trespassing.

Ya think this is possible or just a paranoid fairytale.

Actually, it sounds very much like what happened to the OP.

 

[redhawk44]

Actually, it sounds very much like what happened to the OP.

Yes sir, and what is the difference? No empty holster, but still required to leave because of an established bureaucratic political perception and assumption, and no legal basis. I have no doubt this could/would happen if not challenged!

The Zoo grounds are public property administered by a government subdivision.. See Missouri Revised Statutes 184. They may post buildings where employees are assigned while performing the duties of administration, less rest room facilities, not the grounds!

 

[Oramac]

Question--- In Mo are amusement parks regulated, licenced, and inspected? When was the zoo inspected last for this amusement park function?

BB62, PM sent.

 

[BB62]

Question--- In Mo are amusement parks regulated, licenced, and inspected? When was the zoo inspected last for this amusement park function?

First, thanks to Oramac.

JoeSparky: The subject of the Zoo possibly formally claiming to be an "amusement park" was the main subject of an e-mail I just sent to Chief Dotson (SL Metro PD) as well as various other authorities.

The gist of it is that MO law doesn't define "amusement parks", it only defines amusement rides, and rides are subject to inspection by the Division of Fire Safety.

As far as I'm concerned the "amusement park" dodge is an example of the Zoo hiding behind anything it can grab on to in order to keep guns out.

 

[JoeSparky]

First, thanks to Oramac.

JoeSparky: The subject of the Zoo possibly formally claiming to be an "amusement park" was the main subject of an e-mail I just sent to Chief Dotson (SL Metro PD) as well as various other authorities.

The gist of it is that MO law doesn't define "amusement parks", it only defines amusement rides, and rides are subject to inspection by the Division of Fire Safety.

As far as I'm concerned the "amusement park" dodge is an example of the Zoo hiding behind anything it can grab on to in order to keep guns out.

I understand! Just thinking out loud---and continuing, does the zoo have any rides that would need this inspection? If so, how frequently? Are they in compliance? If that have no rides requiring such inspection, how can they claim to be an amusement park while maintaining a straight face?

 

[LMTD]

I understand! Just thinking out loud---and continuing, does the zoo have any rides that would need this inspection? If so, how frequently? Are they in compliance? If that have no rides requiring such inspection, how can they claim to be an amusement park while maintaining a straight face?

They have a couple, a carousel and they have a train as well, I know the train falls under federal transportation regs for a narrow track train so not sure it is a "ride" so to speak, but the carousel is without a doubt.

there are also other special events that take place there, but not sure about other rides even temporary.

 

[BB62]

...If that have no rides requiring such inspection, how can they claim to be an amusement park while maintaining a straight face?

Come on Joe, that's easy - because they despise guns and those who own them! :idea: (and are willing to latch onto anything that will advance their biases)

 

[deepdiver]

Come on Joe, that's easy - because they despise guns and those who own them! :idea: (and are willing to latch onto anything that will advance their biases)

St Louis City and County pretty consistently hate guns at about the same percentage that neighboring Jefferson and St. Charles County support gun rights. Very hoplophobic city and county across socio-economic ranges.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped-- how can they claim to be an amusement park while maintaining a straight face?

Come on Joe, that's easy - because they despise guns and those who own them! :idea: (and are willing to latch onto anything that will advance their biases)

 

[JoeSparky]

Come on Joe, that's easy - because they despise guns and those who own them! :idea: (and are willing to latch onto anything that will advance their biases)

Ok, let me rephrase---- How does a person with integrity and honorable ethics make claims such as these with a straight face?

I heard a story about a patient who was convinced he was a corpse being seen by a psychiatrist. One day the doctor asks the patient if corpses bleed and was answered by the patient that Corpses being dead do not bleed. The doc then pricked the patient's finger and squeezed out a drop of blood. At which the patient says, "Well, I guess corpses DO bleed".

Convincing one against their will does have its challenges!

 

[BB62]

* Action needed*

Call Jennifer Joyce's office @ (314) 622-4941 (Circuit Attorney) or if forum rules disallow phone number posting: http://www.circuitattorney.org/

Here's why:

When I spoke to Chief Dotson last Friday, he said he would be back in touch with me Monday or Tuesday. > That didn't happen. <

Today I wrote the Chief, the Circuit Attorney, the Attorney General, and the media yet another e-mail debunking another section of 571.107 as possible justification for the Zoo's claims. (the Zoo said "several provisions" of which were supportive of its position) http://tinyurl.com/orlpxwt (571.107)

I also again asked the Chief (and this time I also asked the other law enforcement officials I had been communicating with) for a *simple, specific* answer as to what portions of the law provided legal cover for the Zoo's signage.

My opinion is that the Chief and his legal counsel recognize that the position that they're in is untenable, but don't want to admit it. In other words, rather than being the public servants they're supposed to be and justifying the actions of a governmental entity, they're ignoring the reasonable request of a citizen.

If you find this as unacceptable as I do, please call the Circuit Attorney's office and express your displeasure. Thank you.