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.
