Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: email address for the Mayor of Maplewood

  1. #1
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    email address for the Mayor of Maplewood

    If you care to send an email to the Mayor of Maplewood, here is his email address:

    j-white@CityofMaplewood.com

    Make it informative, I did. I pointed out that the over 120,000 CCW permit holders of Misssouri and the thousands more with other State CCW permits will look at the City of Maplewood as not being 2nd amendment friendly. I also left my name and address!
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292
    has anyone considered organizing a protest involving possibly inviting OC'ers from statewide to show up at the maplewood city hall?

    i'm thinking the the "there's a firearm under this shirt....does 2mm of clothing make a difference" shirts are now perfect for this.

  3. #3
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by nrepuyan View Post
    has anyone considered organizing a protest involving possibly inviting OC'ers from statewide to show up at the maplewood city hall?

    i'm thinking the the "there's a firearm under this shirt....does 2mm of clothing make a difference" shirts are now perfect for this.
    Got one shirt, the other coming. I'm very tempted to go,probably will!
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    St. Charles
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    Got one shirt, the other coming. I'm very tempted to go,probably will!
    Marc, if you do go to the meeting, let me know and I'll come along. I'm going to Facebook message you my contact information.

  5. #5
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenSTL View Post
    Marc, if you do go to the meeting, let me know and I'll come along. I'm going to Facebook message you my contact information.
    I will probably go. The City Council meeting is April 12th at 7:30PM.
    7601 Manchester Rd.
    Maplewood,MO.
    63043

    I do not know if the public gets to speak, especially non-residence. It will take some thought if you or I speak. It is public record and I would not be surprised to see media there. There are folks here who may be able to speak to to this better than you or I. we'll have to see what those with more experience have to say.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    I will probably go. The City Council meeting is April 12th at 7:30PM.
    7601 Manchester Rd.
    Maplewood,MO.
    63043

    I do not know if the public gets to speak, especially non-residence. It will take some thought if you or I speak. It is public record and I would not be surprised to see media there. There are folks here who may be able to speak to to this better than you or I. we'll have to see what those with more experience have to say.
    How can they stop a non-resident from speaking? Freedom of speech knows no state boundaries. Besides, I'm sure the city receives some state and federal money of which you contribute to via taxes. Therefore you have every right to speak.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    How can they stop a non-resident from speaking? Freedom of speech knows no state boundaries. Besides, I'm sure the city receives some state and federal money of which you contribute to via taxes. Therefore you have every right to speak.
    It would be nice to get the best speaker possible. I've asked one of our local "experts" on OC to do so... waiting for an answer.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by nrepuyan View Post
    has anyone considered organizing a protest involving possibly inviting OC'ers from statewide to show up at the maplewood city hall?

    i'm thinking the the "there's a firearm under this shirt....does 2mm of clothing make a difference" shirts are now perfect for this.
    As a reminder, you probably don't actually want to CC to the meeting, RsMO 571.107.1.(5). cshoff will tell you that it's perfectly fine, but we don't need another publicity hit. The shirt is very clever, and I like it, but I'm not sure it wouldn't do more harm than good.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    As a reminder, you probably don't actually want to CC to the meeting, RsMO 571.107.1.(5). cshoff will tell you that it's perfectly fine, but we don't need another publicity hit. The shirt is very clever, and I like it, but I'm not sure it wouldn't do more harm than good.
    i didn't mean carry in the meeting...more so possibly outside of city hall, where the shirt would be the most effective, as you are not able to carry in government buildings / police stations anyway...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by nrepuyan View Post
    i didn't mean carry in the meeting...more so possibly outside of city hall, where the shirt would be the most effective, as you are not able to carry in government buildings / police stations anyway...
    I'm not saying you did. I just don't want some well-intentioned moron to do it. We really can't take another hit. And yes, I know it's not illegal, but still, the media would be all over it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I'm not saying you did. I just don't want some well-intentioned moron to do it. We really can't take another hit. And yes, I know it's not illegal, but still, the media would be all over it.

    this is true....lord knows someone would do it...

    .....somehow it's sad tho.....kirkwood people would probably feel different about not being able to defend themselves.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    I have two of the shirts on the way.

    They contacted me and they will be white with black lettering instead.

    they said something about the size and pixel count would need to be redone for a black shirt.

    If I can get away from work I plan to be there.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    Got one shirt, the other coming. I'm very tempted to go,probably will!
    I don't have the shirt,but I'll go with you anyways. Let me know!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    I emailed him ( not like he'll care anyways ) and was very professional.

  15. #15
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Can't carry...but can still make a point

    Just "open carry" an empty holster.

  16. #16
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I'm not saying you did. I just don't want some well-intentioned moron to do it. We really can't take another hit. And yes, I know it's not illegal, but still, the media would be all over it.
    "Well-intentioned moron"???

    If you are implying that only a moron would carry into this meeting, perhaps you need a mirror.

    Are you still naive enough to believe that a government meeting is somehow more secure than any other?

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    ks-wood@sbcglobal.net, david@studioaltius.com, vitrolite@earthlink.net, f-wolf@CityofMaplewood.com, bgreenberg@adg-stl.com, s-faulkingham@CityofMaplewood.com

    All ward aldermen for Maple wood including deputy mayor:

    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by cash50 View Post
    "Well-intentioned moron"???

    If you are implying that only a moron would carry into this meeting, perhaps you need a mirror.

    Are you still naive enough to believe that a government meeting is somehow more secure than any other?
    Well, let me break it down. I say "well-intentioned" because the intent of some person carrying a firearm with the shirt on would be to demonstrate that the only difference between open carrying and concealed carrying is a matter of a small piece of material.

    I say moron, because despite their intentions, I have absolutely no reason to think that it would, in fact, advance the cause of open carry. Rather, it would be another chance for the aldermen to say "Look, they've even brought a firearm to our council meeting" Sure, it's technically not illegal to do so. But. we aren't dealing with people that operate on facts, we're dealing with people that operate on emotion.

    I think that anyone knows the recent history of city council meetings in St Louis area knows that they are, in fact, not safe.

    Now, if you would like to reconsider calling me a moron, I would appreciate it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Well, let me break it down. I say "well-intentioned" because the intent of some person carrying a firearm with the shirt on would be to demonstrate that the only difference between open carrying and concealed carrying is a matter of a small piece of material.

    I say moron, because despite their intentions, I have absolutely no reason to think that it would, in fact, advance the cause of open carry. Rather, it would be another chance for the aldermen to say "Look, they've even brought a firearm to our council meeting" Sure, it's technically not illegal to do so. But. we aren't dealing with people that operate on facts, we're dealing with people that operate on emotion.

    I think that anyone knows the recent history of city council meetings in St Louis area knows that they are, in fact, not safe.

    Now, if you would like to reconsider calling me a moron, I would appreciate it.

    What's the phrase so often used on this board, "a right unexercised is a right lost"???

    And a moron is anyone who doesn't act in accordance with "what you think"?

    So the way to get them to let us open carry is to not open carry? You are quite the manipulator of minds.

    I never called you a moron; unless you were implying that ONLY a moron would carry into a government meeting, in which case I offered for you to look in the mirror. You didn't respond to that "if, then" scenario.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by cash50 View Post
    What's the phrase so often used on this board, "a right unexercised is a right lost"???

    And a moron is anyone who doesn't act in accordance with "what you think"?

    So the way to get them to let us open carry is to not open carry? You are quite the manipulator of minds.

    I never called you a moron; unless you were implying that ONLY a moron would carry into a government meeting, in which case I offered for you to look in the mirror. You didn't respond to that "if, then" scenario.
    No, a moron would be someone who carries a firearm into a scenario where state statutes prohibit it, and where the actions of the people gathered there appear to be opposed to the bringing of firearms, and where the police are strongly suspected (at the minimum) of responding inappropriately to an armed citizen.

    I have no intentions of carrying a firearm into a government meeting. So, that means I'm not a moron by my definition. I don't do it because it's illegal for me to do so. I have my CCW endorsement, so I get the automatic free first strike. I don't do it because I know that doing so will mean that the possibility exists that some of the people observing could be swayed from a half-hearted endorsement of 2A rights, to a less than half-hearted endorsement of 2A rights.

    I can and do take my firearm everywhere that I'm permitted to have it.

    As long as the OC movement has people that strap on without considering the results of their actions, and the anti's have the media in their back pocket, we're going to continue to get black eyes. Heck, I'm reminded of the story that Kevin Jamison tells about being at a radio show where some anti's said he was brandishing a firearm, when he wasn't even carrying. He asked the media there to refute that, and they refused. We aren't dealing with rational people, and sometimes it's better not to antagonize. At this point, we need diplomacy at the City Council meeting, not a bunch of people with firearms.

    If you disagree with me, I don't have a problem with it. Please feel free to do whatever you want, and carry where ever you want. As a matter of fact, even do it on the city council meeting on April 12th. I'll watch the 10PM news to see how it goes.
    Last edited by kcgunfan; 03-24-2011 at 07:43 PM. Reason: fix typo

  21. #21
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    You said , "I say moron, because, despite their intentions, I have absolutely no reason to think that it would, in fact, advance the cause of open carry". Not only did that sentence make all your former English teachers mad, you implied that morons were people who didn't act in compliance with your standards of what should be done.

    So to answer my question to you, which you didn't answer, yes that's what you think.

    Also, I asked if not open carrying is your plan to get them to allow us to open carry? You didn't answer. How unusual. Instead, you seem very concerned about the about the appearance of the actions of people gathered "there", and to police responding innapropriately. Now in the course of two posts you've called police morons. Not only are they carrying guns where the appearance of the actions of the people gathered frowns upon such things, they also respond in a manner not in accordance with your accepted standards and are, by your logic, morons. But at least you aren't one.

    I offered another chance to respond to the "if,then" scenario. You declined. Great. So only a moron would carry into a government meeting. You say it's against the law, so tell me what the penalty is for simply carrying into this meeting? And spare me anything pertaining to staying after being asked to leave.

    Another interesting note some morons may want to be enlightened on is your implication that diplomacy can only be achieved through unarmed people.

    And thank you for offering the olive branch here, giving your blessing on my freedom to do as I please and carry as I see fit. Given the tone of all my previous posts, I am relieved to finally be able to be permitted my freedom. I truly hope, and doubt, that you understand this message.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    If I may settle the moron debate so we can move along to more important things like OPEN CARRY RIGHTS I will gladly accept the moron title for unjustifiably attacking cash50 based solely on my own mistake and misunderstanding a few months ago. There you have it, LMTD is the resident moron, I request you say it like the dude in the green shirt from the movie animal house.

    Thank you,

    Openly carrying a firearm in a legal manner is a positive thing when done with class and polite behavior.
    Wearing a tee shirt that clearly defines you support open carry is a positive thing when done with class and polite behavior.

    It is called ADVERTISEMENT and winning support requires such.

    Doing either while saying inappropriate things can not only hurt the message, they can be twisted into something they never were meant to be at all.

    Since I have assisted in the moron debate by claiming the title, could we possibly work on improving my letter and sending more? We will not win this if we are busy fussing over trivial words and right now on coptalk we are all being called morons and worse, we need to change that image.

    Thank you for consideration.

  23. #23
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    As a reminder, you probably don't actually want to CC to the meeting, RsMO 571.107.1.(5). cshoff will tell you that it's perfectly fine, but we don't need another publicity hit. The shirt is very clever, and I like it, but I'm not sure it wouldn't do more harm than good.
    I have NEVER said that it is "perfectly fine" to carry into a city council meeting. Ever. And I challenge you to find a post where I did.....

    I will wait for you to either retract your above statement, or apologize for the false accusation.

    For the record, nothing in Missouri state law prohibits a valid permit holder from carrying a concealed firearm into a city council meeting. Nothing. In fact, the word "prohibited" can't even be found in the relevant statutes. But notwithstanding that fact, it doesn't necessarily mean it's prudent to carry into a city council meeting in every/any situation.

    Sorry for my part in derailing this thread, but I thought it necessary to defend myself from baseless accusations.

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post

    Sorry for my part in derailing this thread, but I thought it necessary to defend myself from baseless accusations.
    NP hoff,

    Can you take a look at the boycott thread, there is some confusion on the 51% rule and I have a weak response from hotshots I want to get a second opinon on.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    First, it's counterproductive to mock my grammar. I certainly haven't done that to you. And, it's not likely to produce a rise out of me. So, put the red pen away, and let's talk like adults. First, I will respond to your new objections, and then I will try answer the question you think I am avoiding.

    I apologize for calling the police morons by inference. That was not my intent and, I don't think anyone but you read it that way. Actually, I don't think you read it that way either, you were just looking for something to complain about. But, let me remove that from your list of objections to my post. Anyone that is authorized by law to carry into a City Council meeting is not necessarily a moron for doing so. I will try to be much more explicit in the future, instead of assuming. Is that to your satisfaction?

    Yes, I do stand by my assertion that a member of the general public carrying a firearm into the Maplewood City Council meeting on April 12th is a moron. I have not generalized it to anything else. I'm explicitly limiting it to this one time and this one place. I never said to a governmental meeting. I've merely said this one. Please don't imply something I didn't say.

    You also say that I said it's against the law to carry into a governmental meeting. I never said any such thing. But, let me answer your question about the penalty. And, I'm not going to give you the line about staying after being asked to leave. If you are caught with a concealed weapon in a City Council meeting, and do not have a valid CCW endorsement, you are in violation of RsMO 571.030.1.(8). The violation for breaking that statue is in RsMO 571.030.7, and it's a class D felony. if you are referring to someone with a valid CCW endorsement, I once said that it was "technically not illegal" and once said that it is prohibited. I even said that I get the free first strike because of my CCW endorsement. As far as I know, I haven't misrepresented the law for valid CCW endorsement holders in any way. I was a little sloppy about not making that explicit in my first response to you. I apologize for that. Again, I think you're trying to pick nits here, but I can be more proper with my phrasing. In the future, I'll be sure to use the term "not authorized." Is that to your satisfaction?

    I believe that taking a firearm into a location where it is not wanted will tend to create more ill will than good will. In this specific case (and most other cases), I can't see how it would bring good will to people with an anti-firearm mentality. And that is regardless of whether or not it's strictly legal to have a firearm there. And I believe that we are going to need a lot more good will than ill will to move gun laws in this state to a footing more proper with the Second Amendment. The entire crux of my argument on this issue rests on the fact that I believe taking a firearm to this particular meeting will produce more ill will than good will. I certainly do not have an issue with someone who disagrees with me on this issue. But, I'm trying to explain why I think it will not be a good idea.

    Again, all that I have said is that there is a couple hour period where it might not be a good idea to carry a firearm, and provided reasons why I think that. I have never advocated not carrying in general. Please do not cast me as someone opposed to Open Carry. That would not be so.

    From what I understand, the question that I failed to answer was: how will unarmed people will convince the City Council to not ban armed people. That's a reasonable question. And, my answer was not explicit as it could have been, you are correct about that. Let me answer it directly. I will do so by telling you what I think is at least possible to happen.

    Let's hypothesize that we've gotten the most eloquent public speaker ever. And a small army of speechwriters has written a speech for him that has the best ever rationale for not banning OC. Let's say that no rational person is able to ignore the force of the speech.

    That speaker is either going to be unarmed, or will be armed. Furthermore, if he (not assuming the speaker is a male, just using the proper pronoun in colloquial English, trying to avoid your red pen is wearing me out...) is armed he will either be known to be armed (presumably by open carrying) or thought to be not armed (by concealed carrying.) Let's examine those 3 scenarios one by one.

    Unarmed speakers will be treated as normal people interested in the City Council's business, no matter which side of the issue they fall on. They get no special treatment, either pro or con.

    Armed speakers which are not thought to be armed, will be treated as unarmed citizens. A firearm that you cannot see cannot make the point you apparently feel should be made.

    A speaker that make their carry status known, will be in a location that their CCW endorsement does "not authorize" their concealed firearm. And, if he doesn't have a CCW endorsement, he has a significant problem.

    With the current perceived bias on the City Council, the speaker will most likely be asked to leave. If he isn't asked to leave, my whole house of cards partially collapses. So, here's the first place I can have my entire argument blown to smithereens. Would anyone like to bet that a person known to be armed would be permitted to enter or stay in the meeting? Make sure you factor in the 2008 Kirkwood City Council shooter.

    So, the known armed citizen goes to their vehicle, disarms, and comes back in to rejoin the meeting (assuming they're allowed back in). I don't know if they can exclude people, but if they can, I bet they would. If our formerly known armed speaker is blocked from the meeting, we will never hear his words of wisdom. So, it did not help at all. QED.

    Let's assume he's permitted reentry. This formerly armed speaker goes to the podium, and presents the most eloquent defense of open carry ever. The speech is recorded, and put on YouTube. Everyone on OCDO listens to it, and has nothing but praise for the speech and speaker. Unfortunately, none of this matters. It's the aldermen and Mayor that count.

    But, what's going through the aldermen's heads? As I said, no rational person could remain unswayed by the force of the arguments. But remember, they seem to have a predisposition that is anti-OC. And, there's no way they're not thinking about the fact that there was an armed person in their chambers, and it will remind them of the shooting in Kirkwood 3 years ago. I would suspect that it would go a little like this. "Well gee, this person made a great case to continue to permit OC in our fair little city. And, he's totally convinced me to stop kicking puppies. But, he came to OUR council room, carrying a gun. And the police told him to leave, evidently they were concerned about him. I'll give him credit for being consistent with his principles, but he could have killed me, just like Kirkwood. We certainly can't permit this dangerous behavior to continue. I have to vote to prohibit Open Carry."

    Now, let's say that the speaker was unarmed, but there was gallery full of armed individuals that were disarmed and readmitted. The alderman's internal dialog would be a little different, but I believe it would reach the same conclusion.

    Again, I could be wrong here also. It may be possible to win the aldermen with a predisposition against open carry over with a sufficiently good speech, or with a gallery of armed citizens. But, I think a lesser quality speech would accomplish the same effect, if there wasn't a concern about the speaker or the gallery being armed in a City Council meeting.

    At least that's how I see it playing out in my mind. Evidently, you have a different vision in yours. I tell you what. Explain what you see happening at the April 12th meeting if we all (or just some) march in with firearms on our hips. Tell me how you see it playing out. Then we can discuss both of our visions.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •