Mo State Senator Jamilah Nasheed  won a free trip to the Grey Bar Hotel on Oct 20th by Ferguson Police for standing in street and blocking traffic.

 Saw the info on facebook. All the news outlets now have the info.
usatoday.com/news/nation/2014/10/20

Power to the politicians, way to stand up to the man!

Just an update...
http://fox2now.com/2014/10/21/state-senator-had-loaded-gun-at-time-of-arrest-police-suspected-intoxication/

Heard something about being drunk and carrying a concealed gun. Though she did not produce proof that she has a CCW. Not a wise thing to do when drunk. And some are going that it is not a wise thing to do at a protest. I would have to question this last one. Although I think the law is not going to be on your side. Wasn't there something about starting a fight then pulling out the gun will not end well for you?

Okay, I have a MAJOR issue with the second sentence.

Not defending the ignorant Nasheed in any way but do not believe it is an unlawful act to carry a concealed or open carry weapon in MO while intoxicated. Check the laws.

You are correct.

This shit is out of control, LEO's are being considered guilty until proven innocent.

Oh, and BTW, there is NO being innocent if you wear a badge.

would not a person who was intoxicated and carrying a loaded weapon be considered a threat to the public which the leo is required to protect ?

Its a felony in Mo to posses a firearm while intoxicated

 571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons 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; or

(2) Sets a spring gun; or

(3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; or

That is incorrect.  It is not a criminal act UNLESS all conditions are met.  See the word "and" after your red portion?

1. Armed
2. Intoxicated
3.  AND negligently handle or use.

That is a very important distinction.  While we can argue the wisdom of being armed while intoxicated, it most certainly is not a crime.  Had the AND language not been inserted, it could and had been construed to mean that being drunk in your own home while firearms were present was a crime.

Totally agree with the above and the "AND" is in there so all three need to be present.
But, curious about the below, in the last sentence, in the alcohol establishment subdivision (7) of the same section...

(7) Any establishment licensed to dispense intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, which portion is primarily devoted to that purpose, without the consent of the owner or manager. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the licensee of said establishment. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to any bona fide restaurant open to the general public having dining facilities for not less than fifty persons and that receives at least fifty-one percent of its gross annual income from the dining facilities by the sale of food. This subdivision does not prohibit the possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the establishment and shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. Nothing in this subdivision authorizes any individual who has been issued a concealed carry permit or endorsement to possess any firearm while intoxicated;

Just curious...
me

Read further down....

I seen that and read it a couple times.  I read into it (7) too much.  I guest I was looking at it as "not authorized" and as like not having one.

I used to work with plenty of LEO and state statutes.  Some would misconstrue the law any way they could to make an arrest or cite
Most were pretty cool and cut a lot of people breaks.  But seen plenty of AHs that would do anything they could to get another number.

Thanks for answering.
me

I didn't realize saying "no" was an option.

I know you can refuse a breathalyzer, but I didn't realize the police response was basically "well, OK then I guess".

I don't have the statute in front of me to cite but if you are driving and refuse a breathalyzer, you automatically lose your DL for a year.  She wasn't driving so I doubt they could go that route.  They could have attempted to attain a warrant / court order for a blood draw but that wouldn't have really yielded much of an additional charge.  Possibly public intoxication or something to that effect.  

What I am concerned with is the confiscation of the gun and it being forwarded to Stl County for test firing.  WTF?!  We should all be concerned with that little nugget.

That part jumped out at me too.  I have never heard of this happening, so I am curious how typical that is?  

Phil

Just wondering if the serial number had been messed with. Leaving the police with suspections. Or the desire to mess with her so they take the gun and send it over for testing. Then a month later return it to her if it come up clean. I understand and agree with everyone else about how drinking and carrying is not against the law. And carrying to a protest is not against the law. Just Passion has played a major part in so many shootings in the past. That is the only reason I didn't think it to be to smart of a thing to do. But again I would not want someone to stop me from doing it if I wanted to. Suppose that old saying "Play stupid games, Win stupid prizes" comes to mind. I just do not understand why would someone carrying a gun, would refuse to obey a lawful order? I am more apt to watch my speed while driving and carrying at the same time. I am less likely to give someone the finger while carrying. Cause if we go physical and I shoot them and there are witnesses to the flying statute. I am in deep do-do.

Yep, anytime they take possession of a firearm, they send it to their range for ballistic testing.  The keep a spent casing and a bullet.

It doesn't even have to be for an arrest.  Let's say you're in a car accident or have a medical emergency and the take your CCW piece for "safe keeping"  Good luck getting it back for several months to a year.

Friend of a friend had it happen to him a few months ago.  The cops in Clayton refused to give him his gun back saying it was going to be several weeks before they could release the gun back to him.  I called my buddy that works there and he said, good luck, it would be 6 months to a year as backed up as knew they were.  He suggested getting a lawyer and demanding it back as it wasn't part of an arrest, just a medical emergency.

How is this an elected official!! Who does this! This is exactly why I can't read the news any more.... This lady isn't fit to make decisions for anyone, let alone herself.. GRRRRR

First of all, don't get me wrong, I am strongly for the 2nd Amendment / CCW / Open Carry rights for all.

I agree with the same concern, but also look at it like this... How typical is it that a normal, law-bidding, CCW holder to be arrested?  
Most normal CCW carriers try to avoid confrontation.  She was CCW, looking to be arrested, and did not have her permit with her?
She has a CCW, not doubting that.  But find it hard to believe the police did not ask her for it.  I can understand her being disarmed because she was arrested.
Sending it off for testing to STL County is a stretch and could be a standard policy that any firearm recovered during an arrest gets tested.
How often does this happen and how often do CCW holders get arrested?  Probably few and far between.

In delorean's friend's senerio... That's BS!  I can understand police running the serial number, but if it comes clean, it should be returned as soon as possible.

From what I have heard, the protesters were peaceful and gathering there.  She (Nasheed) and her cohorts were the only ones making a scene.
Just a stupid political stunt that just gives normal CCW holders a black eye  

As you can probably tell...  I support most police efforts, but support individuals' rights more.  I think certain LEOs just over step there bounds sometimes.
Secondly, I don't think they found the firearm until she got to the station.  LEOs out there... stay safe and be careful out there.
me

For the record, I'm not black, but I still uphold these rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

the man must have planted the firearm on her. And the alcohol on her breath.  It was clearly a sandwhich...