Help me out with some CCW references

[Weetabix]

City Hall in my fair city installed metal detectors on Dec 1. They'd had a sign denying me the right to enter armed, but since Missouri is a pre-emptive state, I cheerfully ignored it.

Well, now I can't. And what's worse, the security is only on the public entrance. There are several more entrances where a bad guy could gain entrance by forcing an employee to let him in or by taking an employee's card and just going in.

I need to write some letters. It's probably more about control than about safety, but still...

I've read, but I can't remember where, that CCW holders are statistically less likely to commit felonies than are police officers. Can anyone cite the source?

I've read that shooters seek posted areas to shoot because they know they're less likely to be shot themselves. Can anyone cite me a source?

Can anyone give me any other useful facts and sources? I'll post the letter here for general use in protesting stupid weapons policies. At the end of the letter, I'm going to propose that they post signs saying that CCW holders are encouraged to carry there.

Another thing that pisses me off, is that they're talking about raising our taxes to pay the police and fire pensions they shorted. But they have money for this crap and a full time guy?

I'm considering going in when I have business there with spare mags and an empty holster to let them know what they're doing.

[Erik]

If it's legal to ignore the signs, cant you just ignore the metal detector? Just go there and pass through the detector, explain that you have a valid CCW, and they have no legal right to stop you or to disarm you, citing the correct legal code for it?
It will probably not make you very popular, and might set you up for payback of some sort, but if it's legal I think it might be a point worth concidering. Might even be worth it to have a few dozen CCWs doing it at the same time. YMMV.

As for cite, I found a few sources, I'm sure there are others.
http://www.lesjones.com/posts/004329.shtml
http://digg.com/politics/10_Things_Non_ ... ?t=7528127

[mekender]

If it's legal to ignore the signs, cant you just ignore the metal detector? Just go there and pass through the detector, explain that you have a valid CCW, and they have no legal right to stop you or to disarm you, citing the correct legal code for it?
It will probably not make you very popular, and might set you up for payback of some sort, but if it's legal I think it might be a point worth concidering. Might even be worth it to have a few dozen CCWs doing it at the same time. YMMV.

As for cite, I found a few sources, I'm sure there are others.
http://www.lesjones.com/posts/004329.shtml
http://digg.com/politics/10_Things_Non_ ... ?t=7528127

i say go for it... but i would also expect to spend some time in jail too... you will most likely win, but its gonna cost ya...

would probably be easier to sue

[Weetabix]

It's not permitted in the sense of specifically allowed, but also not a criminal act for me to do what I've been doing. However, the law allows a place to prohibit my carrying, then if I do, and if they find out, and if they ask me to leave, I have to.

So, they're within their rights to prohibit carry and to enforce that prohibition with a metal detector, though I would not be committing a criminal act if I got around it somehow.

I mostly want to try to convince someone to change it because it's stupid and makes things less safe.

And I'm pissed off that they're spending money on this when they're crying about funding to the extent that they're talking about raising taxes.

[mekender]

It's not permitted in the sense of specifically allowed, but also not a criminal act for me to do what I've been doing. However, the law allows a place to prohibit my carrying, then if I do, and if they find out, and if they ask me to leave, I have to.

So, they're within their rights to prohibit carry and to enforce that prohibition with a metal detector, though I would not be committing a criminal act if I got around it somehow.

I mostly want to try to convince someone to change it because it's stupid and makes things less safe.

And I'm pissed off that they're spending money on this when they're crying about funding to the extent that they're talking about raising taxes.

since they are a public building, they must follow the pre-emption laws... which means that the city has violated state statute... unless of course there is another section of the code that allows municipalities to control their own property... which may or may not be the case..

have you tried calling the city attorney and asking him about it?

[Weetabix]

As I read the statutes, they're allowed to do what they're doing. If they tried to prosecute me for something, I think it would be expensive for me, but they'd fail.

Here are the statutes:

Firearms Legislation Preemption
Unlawful Weapons Uses
Where concealed carry is not allowed - Notice the first sentence of 571.107.2.

But it's not the legal position I'm worked up about. It's the stupid position.

I want to persuade more than to fight legally.

[Weetabix]

Oh, yeah. Good links, Erik. Thanks!

[mekender]

ok, you are right, there is an exception to state preemption which is what i suspected...

looks like sec 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 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;

so now, how about a letter wirting campaign?

go to arfcom in the MO section... go to opencarry.org in the MO section...

is there a MO shooters group or grassroots org?

[Weetabix]

The guy I took my CCW class from has an extensive mailing list. I might see if I can get them interested.

[Weetabix]

And this is the part I liked:

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...