• 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 Zoo: communication log + TRO filing/status + legal/financial help needed

OC for ME

Regular Member
Jan 6, 2010
White Oak Plantation
Judge Richter did not opine correctly regarding RSMo 21.750.3, he intentionally left out the qualifier he cited in RSMo 21.750.3(2) which buttresses BB62's legal point. Page, Richter and Hess did not take the opportunity to "educate" Judge Moriarity properly.

RSMo 21.750.3(2) qualifies the permit requirement for OC if a jurisdiction uses 21.750.3(1) to regulate OC.

RSMo 21.750.3(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:

RSMo 21.750.3(2)(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
OC is legal with a permit in STL City and the zoo, even with the zoo considered a amusement park. The zoo is not private property.

RSMo 571.107 explicitly refers to concealed weapons. If the legislature intended to include OCing they have had several opportunities to clarify their intent prior to BB62's legal challenge.

In determining legislative intent, we give words used in the statute their plain and ordinary meaning. If the plain meaning would lead to an illogical result, we look past the plain language of the statute. - Richter (page 3 of the opinion.)
The judges, Richter specifically, looked past the ordinary meaning of the words in RSMo 21.750 and interpreted, incorrectly, legislative intent.


Accomplished Advocate
Aug 17, 2006
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
If this is not finalized, what are the next steps?
Thanks for the question. It was on my list to ask my fantastic attorney yesterday, but I forgot to do so.

A status conference was held on July 12, and the Zoo has filed a motion for summary judgement.

Let's see, didn't they do that once before, only to have the appeals court say "No!"?

Our response is due by August 28.

Following my attorney's advice, that's all I can say at the moment.
Last edited: