St. Louis Zoo: communication log + TRO filing/status + legal/financial help needed

[OC for ME]

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.

 

[phil1979]

If this is not finalized, what are the next steps?

 

[BB62]

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.

 

[BB62]

**Nearly five years** since this matter started, on May 6, 2020 Judge Moriarty once again ruled against me/us following the Zoo's Motion for Partial Summary Judgement. The judge has not yet ruled on the Zoo's request for yet another restraining order.

Again, following my attorney's advice, that's all I can say at the moment.

I will post further information as I'm able/as approved by the wonderful Jane C. Hogan, attorney-at-law.

P.S. - if anyone knows how I can link to the judge's decision, please let me know, or if someone is willing to host it, I can supply someone with the file. Thank you.

 

[kcgunfan]

I will continue to host things for you on Google docs.

 

[color of law]

05/06/2020 Motion Granted/Sustained

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED THAT PLAINTIFF ZOOLOGICAL PARK SUBDISTRICT OF THE METROPOLITAN PARK MUSEUM DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT PLAINTIFF ZOOLOGICAL PARK SUBDISTRICT OF THE METROPOLITAN PARK MUSEUM DISTRICT (SAINT LOUIS ZOO) FITS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ONE OR MORE OF THE GUN FREE ZONES LISTED IN THE CARRY STAUTE, SPECIFICALLY SUBSECTIONS (10) AND (13) OF 571.107.1 RSMo, AND THE ZOO'S DESIGNATION AS A GUN FREE ZONE PROHIBITS VISTITORES, INCLUDING DEFENDANT JEFFRY SMITH, FORM ENTERING ZOO PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED OR OPENLY CARRIED FIREARM. SO ORDERED JUDGE JOAN MORIARTY
#33057

571.107

Permit does not authorize concealed firearms, where — penalty for violation.

revisor.mo.gov

 

[OC for ME]

RSMo 571.107. Permit does not authorize concealed firearms, where — penalty for violation. — 1. A concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections...

Emphasis is mine. Permits for CC are not required. OC is not subject to the statute.

 

[color of law]

Emphasis is mine. Permits for CC are not required. OC is not subject to the statute.

ZOOLOGICAL PARK v. Smith, 561 SW 3d 893 - Mo: Court of Appeals, Eastern Dist., 2nd Div. 2018 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Read the concurring opinion.

 

[OC for ME]

The judge makes a reconstruction where none should have occurred in my view. Having a permit to OC, where RSMo 21.750.2 is invoked by a political subdivision, is not "connected" to RSMo 571.107.1.

"RSMo 571.107. Permit does not authorize concealed firearms, where — penalty for violation."

The "intent" of RSMo21.750.3 is clear and available for all to read in the legislative record...if you wish to go and dig it up...and the judge did not, or did and disagreed with the Jeff City critters restoring individual liberty a wee bit more...not uncommon for anti-individual liberty judges where restoring individual liberty is concerned. SB 656 data provided below.

Actions

The judge emphasizing on the permit and not the manner of carry, specifically delineated in the two statutes.

However, I believe regardless of this issue of fact, Smith was prohibited by law from carrying a weapon, openly or concealed, onto the Zoo's premises.

His opinion regardless of the facts (plain language in the statutes).

However, this does not end our analysis.

This nitwit should have stated "However, this does not we will (I will) not end our analysis...because we don't like folks carrying guns where folks can see them.

Where two statutes covering the same subject matter are unambiguous when read separately, but conflict when read together, we must attempt to harmonize the provisions and give effect to both.

Like Terry v. Ohio, these judges manufactured a harmonization out of thin air.

I will not go further because it will take the MoSC to decide this...and we know judges rarely hold their fellow judges accountable for their nitwittery.

 

[color of law]

OC for ME, since it is your home state I knew you would have a field day.

 

[BB62]

I will continue to host things for you on Google docs.

ONGOING appreciation to kcgunfan for hosting the most recent decision, which can be found here, named "Zoo MSJ granted 5-2020":

Google Drive: Sign-in

Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).

drive.google.com

 

[color of law]

I'm guessing this is on appeal?

 

[BB62]

I'm guessing this is on appeal?

As I understand it at the moment, the judge has not been asked to issue, and therefore has not issued, another restraining order - which WILL BE appealed if and when it is issued.

 

[color of law]

Since it is a partial summary judgement what other issues are unresolved?

 

[BB62]

Since it is a partial summary judgement what other issues are unresolved?

I don't know the answer to that question.

 

[color of law]

I don't know the answer to that question.

Is this judge a con artist? The judge DECLARED that Saint Louis Zoo fits within the definition of one or more of the Gun Free Zones Carry Statutes and the Zoo's designation as a Gun Free Zone prohibits visitors, including Defendant from entering the Zoo property with a concealed or openly carried firearm. In other words, the zoo is a gun free zone, period. Based on this ruling what other issues could possibility nullify that? Nothing.

Anything to delay her decision from getting to the appeals court.

 

[Tosta Dojen]

The judge makes a reconstruction where none should have occurred in my view. Having a permit to OC, where RSMo 21.750.2 is invoked by a political subdivision, is not "connected" to RSMo 571.107.1.

"RSMo 571.107. Permit does not authorize concealed firearms, where — penalty for violation."

The fundamental question here is what makes a permit "valid". In my view, that's an issue solely of the permit's status. Was the permit was properly issued? Is it unexpired and unrevoked? If so, then the permit is valid.

The judge takes a different view, where the permit is "valid" only if it would be effective at its facial purpose at the current time and place. That's a question not just of status, but of circumstance. Can you carry concealed right now? If not, your permit is invalid.

I don't think that reasoning is sound, because the legislature is using a "valid" permit to authorize something that's different from the facial purpose of the permit. To use an analogy, there have been festivals in my local parks where alcoholic beverages are sold. I'd expect that I could present my unexpired driver's license in order to purchase a beer. The judge in this case would say, "Well, because there's an ordinance that prohibits driving in this park, your license is not valid. It doesn't authorize driving under the current circumstances, so you can't use it for a different purpose either. No beer for you."

 

[OC for ME]

Missouri is a permit free state. OC...no permit was ever required, CC...went permitless a couple of years ago. The Judge is to use strict scrutiny per the MO constitution.

RSMo 571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:

  (1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any area where firearms are restricted under section 571.107; or

The MO legislature has made there desires crystal clear, there is no ambiguity...except in that judge's mind...a STL judge = liberal...anti-gun...anti-individual liberty...

 

[BB62]

St. Louis Zoo says gun rights activist should pay its legal bills​

St. Louis Zoo says gun rights activist should pay its legal bills

A St. Louis judge has upheld the zoo's policy banning visitors from carrying guns inside, declaring the publicly funded institution a gun-free zone.

www.stltoday.com

"The St. Louis Zoo appears to have succeeded in officially becoming a “gun-free zone,” but its yearslong legal fight with a gun rights activist isn’t yet over.

The zoo is pursuing a portion of the estimated $150,000 in attorneys fees billed to taxpayers and spent defending the zoo’s gun ban in court. A lawyer for Jeffry Smith of suburban Cincinnati, Ohio, who challenged the firearms ban is criticizing the push for fees from Smith.
In May of last year, St. Louis Circuit Judge Joan Moriarty accepted the zoo’s contention that its 90-acre property in Forest Park qualifies as a school and a gated amusement park — two of 17 designations where Missouri’s open carry law forbids firearms." ...

Response to the Zoo's filing: https://www.stltoday.com/jeffry-smi...-9a0a63241578.html#tracking-source=in-article
.
.
Once again, my never-ending thanks to my attorney, Ms. Jane C. Hogan, as well as to those who donated to make the legal challenge a reality.
.
.
(Oh, and btw, the 2014 "march" in downtown St. Louis was A) NOT a march, and B) attended by about 80 people, not 40 as stated in the above article) https://www.facebook.com/events/690379891057306/

 

[BB62]

This matter has now been settled.

And once again, my NEVER-ENDING thanks to my attorney, Ms. Jane C. Hogan, to all those who donated to make seven years of legal wrangling possible, to the dearly departed and always supportive Grapeshot, to John & Mike of OCDO, and to all of the OCDO "family" who appeared at court, and/or offered or gave help in small or large ways.

THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart.
.
<edited to add>: I just went to GoFundMe to post an update there, with my thanks, but the site now refuses to let one log on unless you supply a phone number, which I refuse to do.
.
It breaks my heart because I can't update or express my thanks there, but no tech company, especially one as unsupportive of ALL civil rights as GFM is, is going to get my phone number directly from me.