TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... he-police/

More testing of Constitutional rights or seeing if you can get an interesting video at the expense of the police.

My assumption is that producing an ID is not required, but would you need to identify yourself if asked.

Beiruty wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... he-police/

More testing of Constitutional rights or seeing if you can get an interesting video at the expense of the police.

My assumption is that producing an ID is not required, but would you need to identify yourself if asked.

The Sherif is Pro 2nA, but had to explain whey his guys were called on the scene.

Keith B wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... he-police/

More testing of Constitutional rights or seeing if you can get an interesting video at the expense of the police.

My assumption is that producing an ID is not required, but would you need to identify yourself if asked.

The Sherif is Pro 2nA, but had to explain whey his guys were called on the scene.

Was the police chief of Marshfield. Marshfield is a small town northeast of Springfield, MO on I-44. While Missouri is open carry as a state, individual municipalities can set ordinances prohibiting it. Marshfield doesn't have one, but several do. But, as you can see, open carry on private property can definitely be restricted and Walmart wanted them to leave. Many stores will not confront someone if they want you to not open carry and will let the LEO's deal with it. They were not arrested, but they were checked out and asked to not go back in carrying openly.

And, while Missouri has always been a legal open carry state, you can see why it is rarely practiced.

E.Marquez wrote: The part I found interesting and need to research is when the Chief stated if a third part was alarmed, (starting at vid tape second :32 or so) it was considered a "peace disturbance".

while that is the reality in much of Texas, we know that the law states otherwise here (displayed with intent calculated to cause alarm).. What does MO law state?
Does MO law say if ANYONE is alarmed,,, the armed person is now in violation ??

Peace disturbance--penalty.
574.010. 1. A person commits the crime of peace disturbance if:

(1) He unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons by:
(a) Loud noise; or
(b) Offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient; or
(c) Threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out; or
(d) Fighting; or
(e) Creating a noxious and offensive odor;
(2) He is in a public place or on private property of another without consent and purposely causes inconvenience to another person or persons by unreasonably and physically obstructing:
(a) Vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
(b) The free ingress or egress to or from a public or private place.
2. Peace disturbance is a class B misdemeanor upon the first conviction. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, peace disturbance is a class A misdemeanor. Upon a third or subsequent conviction, a person shall be sentenced to pay a fine of no less than one thousand dollars and no more than five thousand dollars.

(1) He unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons by:

SewTexas wrote:OK, I read the law differently than the chief does...it doesn't say "if a person is alarmed" then there is a problem it says

(1) He unreasonably and knowingly disturbs or alarms another person or persons by:

to me that means the carrier "knowingly" alarms someone. that means he does something on purpose to cause alarm, that's got to be more than just carrying the gun, it could be putting his hand on it, or whatever, but he's got to actually do something "unreasonable" and "knowingly"....that's what it says....it doesn't say, "wellllll, you can carry unless someone is afraid of the gun"

tbrown wrote:If a gun in a holster is "disturbing the peace" then police would be arresting armored car and bank guards.

That's all I have to say about thinly disguised anti-RKBA arrests.

Keith B wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... he-police/

More testing of Constitutional rights or seeing if you can get an interesting video at the expense of the police.

My assumption is that producing an ID is not required, but would you need to identify yourself if asked.

The Sherif is Pro 2nA, but had to explain whey his guys were called on the scene.

Was the police chief of Marshfield. Marshfield is a small town northeast of Springfield, MO on I-44. While Missouri is open carry as a state, individual municipalities can set ordinances prohibiting it. Marshfield doesn't have one, but several do. But, as you can see, open carry on private property can definitely be restricted and Walmart wanted them to leave. Many stores will not confront someone if they want you to not open carry and will let the LEO's deal with it. They were not arrested, but they were checked out and asked to not go back in carrying openly.

And, while Missouri has always been a legal open carry state, you can see why it is rarely practiced.

Oldgringo wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... he-police/

More testing of Constitutional rights or seeing if you can get an interesting video at the expense of the police.

My assumption is that producing an ID is not required, but would you need to identify yourself if asked.

The Sherif is Pro 2nA, but had to explain whey his guys were called on the scene.

Was the police chief of Marshfield. Marshfield is a small town northeast of Springfield, MO on I-44. While Missouri is open carry as a state, individual municipalities can set ordinances prohibiting it. Marshfield doesn't have one, but several do. But, as you can see, open carry on private property can definitely be restricted and Walmart wanted them to leave. Many stores will not confront someone if they want you to not open carry and will let the LEO's deal with it. They were not arrested, but they were checked out and asked to not go back in carrying openly.

And, while Missouri has always been a legal open carry state, you can see why it is rarely practiced.

5 years ago in CO Springs I'd see men open carrying quite frequently. no alarms there.



I suspect that is the case in many OC states; e.g., Colorado and Montana.

Oldgringo wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... he-police/

More testing of Constitutional rights or seeing if you can get an interesting video at the expense of the police.

My assumption is that producing an ID is not required, but would you need to identify yourself if asked.

The Sherif is Pro 2nA, but had to explain whey his guys were called on the scene.

Was the police chief of Marshfield. Marshfield is a small town northeast of Springfield, MO on I-44. While Missouri is open carry as a state, individual municipalities can set ordinances prohibiting it. Marshfield doesn't have one, but several do. But, as you can see, open carry on private property can definitely be restricted and Walmart wanted them to leave. Many stores will not confront someone if they want you to not open carry and will let the LEO's deal with it. They were not arrested, but they were checked out and asked to not go back in carrying openly.

And, while Missouri has always been a legal open carry state, you can see why it is rarely practiced.

I suspect that is the case in many OC states; e.g., Colorado and Montana.