• 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.

St. louis Alderwoman pushed assault weapons ban. Wait. What?

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
770
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
St. Louis alderman Lyda Krewson (D-28th Ward) is pushing a ban that will require law-abiding citizens to get rid of their “assault weapons” over a 60-day period or face fines and jail time..

Educate me, please.

Wouldn't a St. Louis ordinance on this violate Missouri's pre-emption law?

And if it does, why isn't anyone cramming that fact down her freaking throat to show how stupid she is?

Or am I incorrect about Missouri law?

In my state a city/county ordinance violation cannot include jail time and is not a crime. WTF is with these states that allow burgs to jail people for local offenses?
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Yes, it would violate Missouri's preemption law. I can't say much for St Louis politics, but I can't imagine the legal advisor not explaining this using short words. I'm watching and waiting.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
she can't force them to get rid of their weapons either, it violates pre-emption on every front.

besides what right does she have to tell people what they can and can't have in their own residence? leased owned or otherwise?
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,041
Location
St. Louis, MO
Its pretty obvious shes doing this to appease her base, and if there is no law punishing such action in statute, the city council they may very well pass the ordinance in St. Louis as a political stunt.

If events in Seattle are any indication of trend for heavy liberal cities, they will pass the law just to force someone to take them to court to formally overturn it, regardless of enforce-ability.

Seattle has pulled similar stunts several times over the last decade, currently one such stunt regarding taxation of firearms and ammo within the city limits is pending at the State Supreme Court.
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
Its pretty obvious shes doing this to appease her base, and if there is no law punishing such action in statute, the city council they may very well pass the ordinance in St. Louis as a political stunt.

If events in Seattle are any indication of trend for heavy liberal cities, they will pass the law just to force someone to take them to court to formally overturn it, regardless of enforce-ability.

Seattle has pulled similar stunts several times over the last decade, currently one such stunt regarding taxation of firearms and ammo within the city limits is pending at the State Supreme Court.


Missouri has an iron clad preemption law, let them pass it, then get a small group to open carry their rifles and dare the police to arrest you. If they do file title 42 USC 1983, 1985 & 1986 law suits not only against the city but every individual involved in the arrest, from the individual cops to every member of the police supervisory staff up to the chief, every individual alderman, city attorney etc etc etc. Hit every individual for $1 million each per arrestee and the city for say $5 million each. Teach the city a real lesson!
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Unfortunately, Missouri's preemption law has no teeth. It's a known problem, but one the GA seems loathe to remedy. I doubt any action against the city or the individual officers would go very far, but hope springs eternal.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Unfortunately, Missouri's preemption law has no teeth. It's a known problem, but one the GA seems loathe to remedy. I doubt any action against the city or the individual officers would go very far, but hope springs eternal.
The teeth comes at the conclusion of the legal/court process. Unfortunately, the expenses inherent in such an effort must be initially borne by the complainant.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
I think where the teeth would come from is exactly as grapeshot explained, the law itself has no real teeth, but the fact it is a rights violation is where the teeth come to bear, and the proverbial ripping of a new one ensues.

but the initial cost would be from the complainant.

also, I wish alder whoevers, would be smart enough to KNOW the state law before attempting to pass a stupid public relations piece of crap through.
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
Unfortunately, Missouri's preemption law has no teeth. It's a known problem, but one the GA seems loathe to remedy. I doubt any action against the city or the individual officers would go very far, but hope springs eternal.

Not counting state law to do squat...... Federal civil rights law suits for $millions, won't get what is originally asked but sill cost the city mega bucks they can't afford.

I think where the teeth would come from is exactly as grapeshot explained, the law itself has no real teeth, but the fact it is a rights violation is where the teeth come to bear, and the proverbial ripping of a new one ensues.

but the initial cost would be from the complainant.

also, I wish alder whoevers, would be smart enough to KNOW the state law before attempting to pass a stupid public relations piece of crap through.

I'm sure organizations like Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms could be brought in with their lawyers for a share of the carcass.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--
I'm sure organizations like Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms could be brought in with their lawyers for a share of the carcass.
Even thoughs organizations pick and choose which tests to pursue.
 

FMCDH

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
2,041
Location
St. Louis, MO
Even thoughs organizations pick and choose which tests to pursue.

Very true, they have limited funding and have to carefully pick and choose their winning battles to stay in business, and keep donor confidence.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg and his minions drop millions at the drop of the hat to buy elections and ballot initiatives.

The SAF isn't as big or well funded as people think, nothing like what the NRA rakes in, and yet the SAF has done FAR more for gun owners than the NRA over the last decade.

With that thought, the NRA is even MORE selective in the cases and legislation they get involved in, but they do commonly jump on the bandwagon when an SAF case is going well. :rolleyes:

Every bit helps I guess.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Missouri has an iron clad preemption law, let them pass it, then get a small group to open carry their rifles and dare the police to arrest you. If they do file title 42 USC 1983, 1985 & 1986 law suits not only against the city but every individual involved in the arrest, from the individual cops to every member of the police supervisory staff up to the chief, every individual alderman, city attorney etc etc etc. Hit every individual for $1 million each per arrestee and the city for say $5 million each. Teach the city a real lesson!
Great post Sir!

I concur with your 42 USC 1983,1985 and 1986--- However it would be wiser to file criminal charges against the police under USC title 18- 241-242
for violations of rights while acting under color of law/authority... I belief it is more prudent to seek criminal charges first and foremost.. If the criminal charges stick said defendants will look to settle the 1983-85-86 litigation... Keep in mind that even if the criminal charges are rejected, the civil suit can still be filed both in state and federal court... Hence the beauty of USC 42 section 1983-85-86 litigation, plaintiff's can file in both state and federal court.. Police have no qualified immunity if the court rules that Constitutional rights were knowingly violated under color of law... "Knowingly" is the key word, therefore it would be wise to put the police on notice of your intentions and advise said department that if they interfere they will be held accountable... It may just happen that some egomaniac anti chief will say, and it happened previous, chief will say, I do not care about their rights, I am ordering my officers to arrest open carriers on site.... Nothing better than to attack an egomaniac government anti and bait said anti into putting their foot in their big ego mouth. Hence an open and shut 1983 litigation win!

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Great post Sir!

I concur with your 42 USC 1983,1985 and 1986--- However it would be wiser to file criminal charges against the police under USC title 18- 241-242
for violations of rights while acting under color of law/authority... I belief it is more prudent to seek criminal charges first and foremost.. If the criminal charges stick said defendants will look to settle the 1983-85-86 litigation... Keep in mind that even if the criminal charges are rejected, the civil suit can still be filed both in state and federal court... Hence the beauty of USC 42 section 1983-85-86 litigation, plaintiff's can file in both state and federal court.. Police have no qualified immunity if the court rules that Constitutional rights were knowingly violated under color of law... "Knowingly" is the key word, therefore it would be wise to put the police on notice of your intentions and advise said department that if they interfere they will be held accountable... It may just happen that some egomaniac anti chief will say, and it happened previous, chief will say, I do not care about their rights, I am ordering my officers to arrest open carriers on site.... Nothing better than to attack an egomaniac government anti and bait said anti into putting their foot in their big ego mouth. Hence an open and shut 1983 litigation win!

My .02
Regards
CCJ
The MO constitution makes it clear that MO citizens have the right OC as they see fit, where guns ain't prohibited by law. A QI claim would not stand. After 1 Jan 2017 CC will be the same. The OC w/permit section of RSMo 21.750 will fall after 1 Jan 2017 else the courts will strike it down.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/Consthtml/A010231.html
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Yeah, after what the SC did with the non violent offender carrying, I'm not going to hold my breath on them supporting any expanded gun rights.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
Yeah, after what the SC did with the non violent offender carrying, I'm not going to hold my breath on them supporting any expanded gun rights.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Who cares what .govs say about your rights ... they cannot regulate them and turn them into permissions. That's not what rights are all about.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Who cares what .govs say about your rights ... they cannot regulate them and turn them into permissions. That's not what rights are all about.

So true, however one cannot redress wrongs in the street, we can only rely on the courts and that today is no guarantee..

My .02
 
Top