Zoo granted temporary restraining order against man planning to bring gun onto property

[ou812]

Now don't get distracted by the news anchor!!!!

 

http://www.kctv5.com/story/29306868/st-louis-zoo-seeks-temporary-restraining-order-against-man-planning-to-bring-gun-onto-property

[jgradyc]

Stuff like this just makes me wince.

[E4 No More]

I don't know why the news anchor would be distracting but the Chief of Police is a F'n idiot!

[monkeylizard]

From reading some other threads on here, I expected it to be the Memphis or Nashville zoo....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:hiding:

[chances R]

There will always be idiots around........

[gregintenn]

There will always be idiots around........

...and somehow they'll hold elected offices.

 

Jeffry Smith isn't doing us any favors either.

 

Trust me, this wouldn't be the first gun to enter the St. Louis zoo. If you go to St. Louis, you'd better carry everywhere.

Edited June 12, 2015 by gregintenn

[bersaguy]

All things like this do is give the anti gun people more ammunition to use in their plight to banned guns period. If the Zoo is legally posted this guy is an idiot for calling them and asking them to change a policy that has been in effect for a long time probably. Just another idiot trouble maker and against most of what good legal law biding gun owners try NOT to do...............jmho

[bersaguy]

I went to St Louis back in 1989 to attend the Hunter Wheel alignment school to get certified in Wheel Alignment for Brentwood Shell where I worked. They were paying for it so I went and also went packing heat and Slept with it in the motel and also took it to Hunter School concealed of course. It would be like going to Memphis unarmed. Nothing against Memphis but just a town I know little about and might wind up in area I don't want to be in............................ :shrug: :shrug:  

[duncan1371]

And I quote "Sam Dotson doesn't think more guns is ever the answer. We need stronger gun laws." How about we not refer to ourselves in the third person. I don't think this guy should be trying to go against the grain but I fully believe the sheriff is a moron

[ehull20000]

.

Edited June 12, 2015 by ehull20000

[ehull20000]

1)  The Saint Louis Zoo is legally classified as a tax-supported political subdistrict of the State of Missouri. Essentially, the Zoo is a government agency and has restrictions on how it raises and spends money. The Zoo also has a nonprofit partner, the Saint Louis Zoo Association, dedicated to raising funds in support of the Zoo's mission.

 

 

2)  During the primary election last year, Missouri voters saw the following option in their ballots.

 

"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?"

 

60% voted Yes and now Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri state constitution reads as follows:

 

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned.  The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

3)  I don't fully understand how Mr. Smith or his actions is/are damaging to gun owners.  From the few minutes of google searching I did, it would seem that the Zoo was not following the Missouri state constitution as amended by voters last year.  He did however accomplish three important things.  

     A)  Brought media attention to this topic.  If he had not acted, we would not be talking about this right now.

     B ) Brought judicial attention to this topic.  Unalienable and strict scrutiny are very powerful words, words that have specific meaning  

           especially in case law.

     C)  Helped to identify the political views of St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson. Dotson is quoted as saying “More guns are never the    

           answer. I think we need to have stronger gun laws and make sure that they are used in appropriate ways.”

 

He was dressed well, not in camo or tactical clothing. Hopefully his actions will bring positive outcomes for Missouri citizens both at the zoo and at other locations.  

Edited June 12, 2015 by ehull20000

[DaveTN]

I don't know why the news anchor would be distracting but the Chief of Police is a F'n idiot!

I saw no quotes or mention of a Police Chief or any other cops; what did the Chief do?

[Garufa]

I saw no quotes or mention of a Police Chief or any other cops; what did the Chief do?

 

Watch the video.....but it looks like the default clip on that link posted by OP has changed in the past few hours.  Here is the original:

 

http://www.kctv5.com/clip/11592816/st-louis-zoo-files-court-order-against-ohio-man

 

The St. Louis Police Chief makes his position quite clear.  "I think we need to have stronger gun laws", etc.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Garufa

[Pete123]

The behavior of Mr. Smith, the gun rights guy, is really disturbing.  He does nothing but cause trouble for all of us which can easily be avoided.

[bersaguy]

Well maybe Mr Smith went about this all wrong. If in fact the people of the State of Missouri voted as mentioned above maybe Mr. Smith should have contacted the Missouri Governors office and requested that the No gun Signs at the Zoo be remove before his visit. As it states it is against their own laws for the signs to be on the Zoo in the first place. And I agree, the police chief isn't playing with a full deck of cards since he does not want to go along with the people of the state that voted as they did.......................jmho

[ou812]

I saw no quotes or mention of a Police Chief or any other cops; what did the Chief do?

St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson disagrees and said, “More guns are never the answer. I think we need to have stronger gun laws and make sure that they are used in appropriate ways.”

Chief Dotson is currently working with the city counselor's office to determine what the law allows. He told News 4 police will share that information with Smith when he arrives at the zoo.

Read more: http://www.kctv5.com/story/29304034/ohio-man-plans-to-enter-st-louis-zoo-with-gun-saturday#ixzz3ctlovtNl

[DaveTN]

It will be interesting to see what the court decides.
Is the issue here that Missouri allows open carry of a rifle and that businesses can post, but public places can’t?

[300winmag]

You can only be asked to leave in Missouri.  If you don't leave, then you can be fined.  It is treated more as a trespassing issue.  You can carry in schools in Missouri and again all that happens is you are asked to leave.  Of course that is if you are carrying concealed with a license.  I have no idea how that relates to open carry in Missouri without a license.  I know it is legal to open carry there w/o a license but don't know the restrictions.

Edited June 13, 2015 by 300winmag

[DaveTN]

So what can’t they just ask him to leave or refuse him entrance? I think the attorney’s had to have a case with some merit to get an injunction. Is this goof balls argument that the zoo is a public place and they can’t post it?

[rmiddle]

So what can’t they just ask him to leave or refuse him entrance? I think the attorney’s had to have a case with some merit to get an injunction. Is this goof balls argument that the zoo is a public place and they can’t post it?

Yes that is what he is claiming and someone earlier in the thread made a good case this is a Government Entity so by state law they can't post.  Kinda like Parks in TN.

 

Thanks

Robert