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.