• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Maplewood moves to ban open carry of firearms

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Quicker than I thought, but not a surprised at any level.

If it does not scare the legislators off of HB841 as well I will be surprised. Depends upon the anti's tactics, they may well run from it.

I find myself perplexed a bit, I want to blame Brett, HOWEVER, that RAS issues is still unresolved and he may well be a victim of circumstance if they did indeed not have it.

For those whom feel the comments from the cell do not count, they might not in court but if the anti's make him the posterboy, the court of public opinion already has lawmakers running, any more questions?

The rules are simple, DON'T say ANYTHING and surely do not say STUPID stuff cause when you do, WE ALL PAY!
 

CsHoSi

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
7
Location
KCMO
It's really unfortunate this incident turned out the way it did in the public view. Not only for the rightful gun owners in Maplewood, but for the whole OC cause.

Now it seems likely there will be one more city to ban OC in MO. At least one Councilperson kept their wits; saying, "We're reacting too quickly."

Sadly, that one is the minority.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
The ordinance hasn't passed completely yet. It requires final approval at the next City Council meeting on April 12.
Anyone here live inMaplewood? Willing to go and speak before the City Council. Here is the chance. I don't know if they would be receptive to outsiders?
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
I know I will get blamed for this, but regardless of my idiotic comments after arrest, this was going to happen just because someone open carried there.
 

StevenSTL

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
96
Location
St. Charles
I know I will get blamed for this, but regardless of my idiotic comments after arrest, this was going to happen just because someone open carried there.

That's not true. If I remember correctly, Doc has had at least one meet up in Maplewood. The City Hall Tour passed through there not that long ago, if my memory serves me right.

The problem is exactly what you said afterwards. If you could have kept your (explicit) mouth shut, then Fox would have never run the segment and the city council wouldn't be making a big fuss.

You were detained illegally. They had NO right to disarm you. But none of that matters now because of your past and your threatening comments.
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
That's not true. If I remember correctly, Doc has had at least one meet up in Maplewood. The City Hall Tour passed through there not that long ago, if my memory serves me right.

The problem is exactly what you said afterwards. If you could have kept your (explicit) mouth shut, then Fox would have never run the segment and the city council wouldn't be making a big fuss.

You were detained illegally. They had NO right to disarm you. But none of that matters now because of your past and your threatening comments.

To clarify, I meant as soon as the police showed up to someone open carrying. This was in the works the first week after I was arrested, not after Monday nights news broadcast.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
That's not true. If I remember correctly, Doc has had at least one meet up in Maplewood. The City Hall Tour passed through there not that long ago, if my memory serves me right.

The problem is exactly what you said afterwards. If you could have kept your (explicit) mouth shut, then Fox would have never run the segment and the city council wouldn't be making a big fuss.

You were detained illegally. They had NO right to disarm you. But none of that matters now because of your past and your threatening comments.

First, I'm not even vaguely condoning lancers' comments in the cell. He probably wasn't the first to openly carry in the town. But, I think he's right in the respect that he is the first one that has come to the attention of the LEO's or the media. I agree with you that had he kept his mouth shut, we would be very unlikely to be where we are today. I don't think his past matters that much. He does appear to like to bait and trap police departments, according to the media, but it's his comments that did all of the damage. The rest was just fluff.
 

Festus_Hagen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
490
Location
Jefferson City, Mo., ,
I don't think his past matters that much. He does appear to like to bait and trap police departments, according to the media, but it's his comments that did all of the damage.
I think his previous record has alot to do with it. He hassles the police, they make his world harder. Karma .

Also, it just goes to show that not all publicity is good.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Well lets put the brakes on pointing a finger at Brett.

Why?

Well the cops are calling us all clowns and even if you say Brett is a clown, the constitution does not say everyone but clowns does it?

There was editing within the fox2 tape and Brett really may have said "they could not have been afraid" right before he said I could have shot them etc. If you watch it again it is obvious he was speaking before they turned the audio on.

The point remains they may or may not have had any reason to approach him.

It also remains that his gun is in a crime lab some where but he was not charged he was jailed for an unrelated traffic charge.

Does that mean if I speed through Maple wood and a cop sees my gun when he pulls me over he can grab it and send it off?

Brett may not be the next OC spokesman or gun rights advocate, that does not mean cops get to squash his rights does it?

I am not a fan, I am very disappointed, but I would tend to ask anyone to reconsider prior to tossing him under the bus just yet and I am really pissed at him.

If the cops had RAS well that lends them the merit they need for the detainment and arrest, does not make sending the gun to a lab a brilliant idea does it?

He screwed up huge, he did not shut up and hire a lawyer, that did not renounce his citizenship and his rights still have every bit as much meaning as my own.
 

ChiangShih

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
628
Location
KC
Well lets put the brakes on pointing a finger at Brett.
I agree we should stop pointing fingers and focus on damage control.

That said,

There was editing within the fox2 tape and Brett really may have said "they could not have been afraid" right before he said I could have shot them etc. If you watch it again it is obvious he was speaking before they turned the audio on.
I dont think there is a level on context that would soften what was said and recorded, nor do i think the circumstances lend themselves to a misunderstood context.

It also remains that his gun is in a crime lab some where but he was not charged he was jailed for an unrelated traffic charge.
Does that mean if I speed through Maple wood and a cop sees my gun when he pulls me over he can grab it and send it off?

His gun is most likely being held because of the possible class-c felony charge of carrying while having an active warrant or "possessing a firearm while a fugitive from justice"

Brett may not be the next OC spokesman or gun rights advocate, that does not mean cops get to squash his rights does it?
If the cops had RAS well that lends them the merit they need for the detainment and arrest, does not make sending the gun to a lab a brilliant idea does it?

We are assuming they did not have RAS or that the court wont uphold RAS as it panned out

He screwed up huge, he did not shut up and hire a lawyer, that did not renounce his citizenship and his rights still have every bit as much meaning as my own.
-Agreed.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Email sent

Several issues need accurate consideration prior to the board moving to enact a new law restricting legally openly carried firearms by all citizens within the city of Maplewood.

1. What is the purpose of the new law? Since it has been associated with the recent situation with Mr. Darrow is it clear to all of the representatives that the only difference this law would make in that specific case is that Mr. Darrow would simply hide his firearm as it is apparent that he indeed has a concealed weapons permit and can re-enter Walmart at anytime with a firearm as long as it is hidden.

2. How many arrest have your officers made where a criminal was openly carrying a firearm in the past year? I would suggest that an honest review would indicate very few if any at all. Why? Because criminals hide their weapons just as they attempt to hide their actions and intent.

3. How many calls within the last year has the department had on openly carried firearms within Maplewood? I would again offer very few if any despite their having been known openly carried firearms in Maplewood. It seems the council is dramatically over reacting to ONE person whom called in with concern compared to the thousands whom live in the city.

4. If a person has made an active decision to commit the crime of armed robbery, I would question the board’s logic that that person would be deterred at any level by an ordinance dictating the way they would carry the firearm as it is clear they already have criminal intent.

5. When the dispatcher received the call did they inform the caller that open carry is legal? Did the officers approach the person as someone doing nothing illegal? Is it reasonable for a police officer to assume anyone with a firearm has criminal intent thereby they should detain and investigate? There is indeed case law that clearly defines it is not reasonable.

6. Are you considering this new law in an effort to protect citizens and their rights or is it a reaction to protect the city government from misconduct by detaining citizens whom have broken no laws? Our constitutions, both federal and state clearly define they are to protect citizens from misconduct on the part of the government.

Maplewood is about to consider creation of a new ordinance for no real definable reason. There has been plenty of drama surrounding it, but we do not create laws because of dramatic performances. We should create laws to against criminal actions. While I make no claim to have witnessed the event, I do have questions regarding the initial contact as it seems Mr. Darrow was indeed not charged with any crime indicating he was up to no good.

Did he brandish the weapon? Did he verbalize any threat to anyone within the store prior to the officers arriving? Was he trying to hide his person when the police arrived? Did he do ANYTHING to indicate he might be involved in criminal activity or about to become involved in it? I ask these questions because he was not charged with anything indicating that occurred. The charges that have been forwarded and refused by the prosecutor at this time have nothing to do with the initial contact.
It occurs to me that instead of trying to protect the citizens of Maplewood with a law that will do nothing to prevent firearms being carried instead the board may be doing so for another reason.

Perhaps they are trying to protect the city government from its own misconduct and violating the civil rights of its citizens.

Some might argue that the city needs to do so as Mr. Darrow has been painted with a broad brush as someone “baiting” police. I cannot speak to his motives, but as a fisherman of over 40 years I can tell you I have never caught a fish that did not bite. I am wondering if perhaps the council and yourself might not be better serving those you serve, the citizens, to be drafting an ordinance to better train officers on how to better deal with something they do not agree with but is perfectly legal instead.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this tax payers position and I pray you opt to protect my rights and freedoms and do not react to a single event.
 

woody22

New member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
3
Location
st. louis
I know I will get blamed for this, but regardless of my idiotic comments after arrest, this was going to happen just because someone open carried there.

Troll here,

What idiotic comments? I thought you said they were misunderstood and/or taken out of context by Fox 2?

People, this is not the wild wild west and you are not Doc Holiday.

After you take your show to Maplewood, why don't you gather for a rally at Fairgrounds Park in North St. Louis on a warm spring evening around 6pm? Let us all know how that turns out.

Tuck your pistol in your trousers and let it go folks.

This comes down to a longing for attention. And for that, I would have to put the blame on your parents.
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Troll here,

What idiotic comments? I thought you said they were misunderstood and/or taken out of context by Fox 2?

People, this is not the wild wild west and you are not Doc Holiday.

After you take your show to Maplewood, why don't you gather for a rally at Fairgrounds Park in North St. Louis on a warm spring evening around 6pm? Let us all know how that turns out.

Tuck your pistol in your trousers and let it go folks.

This comes down to a longing for attention. And for that, I would have to put the blame on your parents.

Officer, I meant that I even let any words slip out of my mouth that the cops would give to the media to mix and match to make something they could put on the news.

I'm not scared of North St. Louis. I've driven around there a lot of times- even in the middle of the night. I was stopped one time by SCAT or some other undercover unit in a beat up lumina for being a, "white kid in the hood". They were alright though and let me go pretty quickly when they figured out I wasn't doing anything wrong.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
Troll here,

Tuck your pistol in your trousers and let it go folks.
.

Maybe you could explain the point of having the right to self defense and legality of open carry....

...then voluntarily choosing to forfeit them?

What is the point of something being legal.....

..then getting TROLLED for doing it?

Yes, eating a ham sandwich is completely legal.....

Why don't you go to a food lover's forum and tell themthey should volunteer to not eat ham sandwiches?

Riding a bicycle is completely legal....

Why don't you go to a cycling forum and tell them they shouldn't ride bicycles?

Well, OPENLY CARRYING A FIREARM IS COMPLETELY LEGAL.

Yet, you argue we shouldn't do it.

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that eating ham sandwiches and riding bicycles is constitutionally protected.

However, I CAN see where the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Yet, you want to argue that we should not participate in a constitutionally protected and perfectly legal activity simply by volunteering NOT to?

Maybe you could explain the point of having constitutionally protected rights in the first place if everyone is simply supposed to voluntarily not use them?
 
Last edited:

jad316

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Imperial, Missouri.
Superlite27 very well spoken!!!! My only fear is the other legal municipalities may follow suit with Maplewood. Doc and the rest of the men & women are making GREAT strides with no issues and hopefully they continue their work. Although it would be neat if the local news media did a piece on a meet and greet with OCer's and get an idea not everyone's a bad guy who openly carry firearms. Hell contact Elliot Davis???? He's always finding things worng in municipalities, not sure if he'd be interested though. Although this is desperate time for GOOD PR and we dont need anyhting more to happen.

Jim
 
Top