• 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.

email address for the Mayor of Maplewood

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
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!
 

nrepuyan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
292
Location
Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
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.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
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!
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
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.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
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.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
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.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
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.
 

nrepuyan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
292
Location
Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
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...
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
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.
 

nrepuyan

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
292
Location
Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
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.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
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.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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?
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
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.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
"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.
 

cash50

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
349
Location
St. Louis
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.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
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:
Top