Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Crime In Maplewood

  1. #1
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Crime In Maplewood

    According to the site city-data.com

    From 2001-2009 MW has had the following.

    5 Murders
    26 Rapes
    111 Robberies
    240 Assaults
    471 Burglaries
    2909 Thefts
    400 Car Thefts
    19 Arson

    Now if we say that over 50% were committed by a male, will MW outlaw men?
    You can almost bet that some of these crimes were done with a knife, a screwdriver and possibly a baseball bat, does MW outlaw those items?
    And what about these Arsons...I think it is time to outlaw matches and gasoline!!!
    And I am not going to think what they will outlaw based on the rapes!!!

    I think MW has more pressing issues than to tackle law-abiding citizens rights..IMHO

    Z

    (added)

    Nationwide per 100,000...311.40 (crime index) during this period
    MW....363.98
    I think MW has a problem.
    Last edited by zekester; 04-09-2011 at 09:49 AM. Reason: added compared to nation wide average

  2. #2
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Knee-jerk, reactionary policy that will have no effect on crime is often implemented by those who are unwilling to provide people with the legal backing and encouragement they need to take responsible measures to protect themselves.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post

    I think MW has more pressing issues than to tackle law-abiding citizens rights..IMHO

    Z
    I know you were being sarcastic, but fighting stupidity with sarcasm has a poor effect though filled with ironic humor. The truth is, if you do not make it EASY for a politician to change their mind, they won't do it. Discussing crime statistics is not really useful when the councils issues are concerns about folks going "cowboy up" and potential unintended targets coming in the line of fire.

    Don't forget, the police chief has had the councils ear from the time of the event and not a one of them want him going public saying "he tried to stop it but the council members just ignored his plea's" come election season.

    Common sense says he knows Brett was not a threat, if the jail house video had played as presented after editing and commentary he would have sent it to Florida recommending the CCW permit be revoked and likely advocated for a mental health evaluation wouldn't he?

    Brett and everyone else should take a hard lesson from this one and place improved importance on the 1a issue and never again forget, whatever you say, no matter how benign or appropriate is best left unsaid as it may well be twisted into what it never was by the anti-crowd and exploited for political gain EVERY TIME.

    Chalk it up to youth and the tension of being arrested and just move along as rehashing it just invites additional exploitation of the words spoken or typed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Concede to a point

    Chalk it up to youth and the tension of being arrested and just move along as rehashing it just invites additional exploitation of the words spoken or typed.[/QUOTE]

    But isn't the fact, that we have to "rehash" certain events to get someones attention.

    The person in question may not be a good example...but what if it were you...or me...or even Brett, that was doing nothing more than expressing their rights, or views....would this be rehashing events that although we may or may not agree with, still unlawful as far as the LEO are concerned?

    You mention 1A.....and I agree with you on your assesment...but this go far beyond that....2A and 4A....IMO...are more in play here.

    As far as the crime stats...well...the facts are what they are...If they are willing to pass laws based on fear...then I would hope they would look at the stats. Yes, posted this in jest...but only on the hope that the council will at least consider what they are doing.

    I am sure they are watching this forum...and I pray to GOD they are...because if they pass a law based on one man's actions, or the comments on this forum, then it will be clear that they do not represent the people which have elected them and make them hypocrits (sp) to the crime that is in their own backyard.

    Will this make any difference, I think not....I am sure it will pass and OC will be banned...just more ammunition as far as I am concerned.
    Last edited by zekester; 04-09-2011 at 12:28 PM.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    Chalk it up to youth and the tension of being arrested and just move along as rehashing it just invites additional exploitation of the words spoken or typed.
    But isn't the fact, that we have to "rehash" certain events to get someones attention.

    The person in question may not be a good example...but what if it were you...or me...or even Brett, that was doing nothing more than expressing their rights, or views....would this be rehashing events that although we may or may not agree with, still unlawful as far as the LEO are concerned?

    Yes, posted this in jest...but only on the hope that the council will at least consider what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rehashing something that has negative opinions surrounding it builds resolve within those negative opinions.

    If it were me? They would only have had a police report of a "man with a gun" to report and they would have no jail house comments to exploit as it is not likely they would have taken me as I have no warrants and even if they had, I would not bother speaking to anyone, it would have been dramatically different.

    That does not make it Brett's "fault" as he truly had no idea he was sitting on a warrant of any type, this I believe. That does not change the simple fact that he gave them additional words to twist and exploit for the anti-gun agenda.

    If they are watching, the chief will not get the opportunity to speak to them before hand or during the hearing and reference this forum as a place of advocacy for open carry "who are just sitting around joking and laughing about an incident that was extremely serious where an armed citizen was laughing about shooting police" again it would not be truthful to the context, but the day you start thinking truth and politics are hand in hand, well you might as well just hang up as you have dialed the wrong number.

    I ain't being critical, I ain't even saying you are wrong, I am saying past history clearly indicates the anti's will turn anything they can into the most negative thing they can to push their agenda and truth is ALWAYS optional for them.

  6. #6
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Yes...always an "option"

    I am just saying that if they look at the facts.....and is all I supplied...there is "always" another option...if not...they would of outlawed men...or knifes...or bats,,,or what ever they deemed necessary...outlawing OC...is not necesarry or even warented, based on the crime going on in MW...correct?

    Again, I still see this passing...but good to debate

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    They might be able to ban openly carrying a firearm capable of lethal use, but not just open carry. Anyone will still be able to openly carry a firearm that is non-functioning like missing an internal part like the barrel.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Imperial, Missouri.
    Posts
    105
    What good would that firearm do for you then? Excuse me Mr.Bad Guy please dont rape my wife/daughter/girlfriend until I install my barrel....This has gotten to be a joke.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by lancers View Post
    They might be able to ban openly carrying a firearm capable of lethal use, but not just open carry. Anyone will still be able to openly carry a firearm that is non-functioning like missing an internal part like the barrel.
    You have no idea what you are talking about, they have not written and finalized the ordinance yet. If they were to word it as you describe, removing the firing pin from a 1911 would likely draw you a disturbing the peace charge that might stick since you are intentionally trying to provoke. How far do you want them to take it? To the point where it has to be in a case or box with no parts visible?

    You stir this hornets nest up any more than it already is you are quite liable to get yourself stung badly. The dog was asleep, you poked it, poke it again don't freak out when you get bit.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    You have no idea what you are talking about, they have not written and finalized the ordinance yet. If they were to word it as you describe, removing the firing pin from a 1911 would likely draw you a disturbing the peace charge that might stick since you are intentionally trying to provoke. How far do you want them to take it? To the point where it has to be in a case or box with no parts visible?

    You stir this hornets nest up any more than it already is you are quite liable to get yourself stung badly. The dog was asleep, you poked it, poke it again don't freak out when you get bit.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c000-099/0210000750.htm
    "Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243."

    The case law is pretty clear, a non-functioning firearm that is missing a piece essential to it's operation is not "readily capable of lethal use".

    If Maplewood bans any and all firearms out in the open and doesn't include the phrase "readily capable of lethal use", the law violates state statue. If you look at the other local ordinances that ban open carry, they have that phrase in there for a reason; They are required to.

    I'm not saying I'm going to do it, just that someone could. As far as peace disturbance, those are pretty clear too and nothing could be taken from carrying a non-functioning firearm to even come close to peace disturbance.

  11. #11
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    If they outright ban the open display of a firearm, functional or non-functional, you wouldn't be able OC without violating the city ordinance.
    If they only ban the open display of functional firearms, and you openly display a non-functional firearm, then the disturbing the peace charge is a problem for them because it wouldn't be against the law to openly display a non-functional firearm. Right now the open display of a firearm in not grounds for a disturbing the peace charge, since it's legal today to openly display a firearm that is functional or non-functional.
    The trick is that the mere removal of a firing pin or barrel isn't going to be readily obvious to the most casual observer. You would be challenged by the police. They would have a RAS that you were violating the city OC ban. You would need to show them that it was non-functional before they would need to go away and leave you alone.
    The OC movement in CA do this as it is legal to OC an unloaded handgun. They walk around with 1911's, etc with no magazine in the butt of the gun. The police don't have a RAS of a crime since they can plainly see there is no magazine visible. Sure, there might be a single round in the chamber, but that is a guess and guessing isn't a RAS.
    If the disturbing the peace charge is a no-go now, it is a no-go next week. If you violate the OC ordinance you might see a disturbing the peace charge to compliment it.

    Edit: I see you posted just before I did, Brett. You are correct that they can't legally ban the OC of a non-functional firearm. I don't think unloaded would pass the test, unless you didn't have any ammo that fit the gun on your person.
    Last edited by xc9subcompact; 04-09-2011 at 06:05 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by jad316 View Post
    What good would that firearm do for you then? Excuse me Mr.Bad Guy please dont rape my wife/daughter/girlfriend until I install my barrel....This has gotten to be a joke.
    You could still throw it at them.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by xc9subcompact View Post
    Edit: I see you posted just before I did, Brett. You are correct that they can't legally ban the OC of a non-functional firearm. I don't think unloaded would pass the test, unless you didn't have any ammo that fit the gun on your person.
    Unloaded does not pass the test according to the Missouri Courts. Case law says that a gun could be "readily capable of lethal use" quickly even if it's not loaded and no bullets around, therefore it must be included. Only "non functioning" firearms missing a part key to it's operation would be allowed.

    Sure the cops will probably have RAS to check your gun, but they will have to let you go right after that. Of course, it's Maplewood, and they will still probably take you down.

  14. #14
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Scenario: Two OC holsters. One on the right has a revolver with no cylinder. One on the left has the cylinder, already loaded. This is a disassembled firearm isn't it?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by xc9subcompact View Post
    Scenario: Two OC holsters. One on the right has a revolver with no cylinder. One on the left has the cylinder, already loaded. This is a disassembled firearm isn't it?
    LOL. You might beat the system on that one, but after you are done you will feel like the one beat.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by xc9subcompact View Post
    .
    The OC movement in CA do this as it is legal to OC an unloaded handgun. They walk around with 1911's, etc with no magazine in the butt of the gun. The police don't have a RAS of a crime since they can plainly see there is no magazine visible. Sure, there might be a single round in the chamber, but that is a guess and guessing isn't a RAS.
    If the disturbing the peace charge is a no-go now, it is a no-go next week. If you violate the OC ordinance you might see a disturbing the peace charge to compliment it.
    Well thank you for bringing forward a great example. Guessing may not be RAS but in CA the sight of the gun id adequate for the officer to inspect. You may be detained. You legally must allow police officers to inspect your firearm to ensure that it is unloaded (where applicable per 12031).

    As IRONIC as it is,on the 12th of this month (date sound familiar?) there is currently a bill in CA MEASURE : A.B. No. 144

    TITLE : An act to amend Sections 7574.14 and 7582.2 of the
    Business and Professions Code, and to amend Sections
    626.9, 16520, 17510, 25595, 25605, and 29805 of, to add
    Sections 17040, 17295, and 25590 to, and to add Chapter
    6 (commencing with Section 26350) to Division 5 of Title
    4 of Part 6 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.

    Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense
    to carry a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any
    public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in
    any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of
    unincorporated territory.
    The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to
    openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public
    areas.

    So while rendering it inoperable and carrying it anyway might be LEGAL with heavy emphasis on MIGHT (gonna need a barrel of franklins to test it out) the next knee jerk reactions from the sheeple are to lobby for even more restrictions.

    If your goal is to piss them off with every little loop hole you can find so they close em all up and you wind up with laws like commiefornia rock on. I think it is REALLY FREAKIN STUPID and frankly it is damn near stupid to even talk about it.
    Last edited by LMTD; 04-09-2011 at 11:42 PM. Reason: Adding the irony

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks to all of you for giving more ammunition to the anti's for Tuesday's meeting. I'm sure they appreciate it also.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Imperial, Missouri.
    Posts
    105
    How many people are going to MW meeting?

  19. #19
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    I don't want to change this thread.
    While the CA statute has it written in that they can inspect, a check over on the CA forum seems to point out that this is a 4th amendment rights violation.
    The analogy is that they could write a statute that allows the police to inspect the interior of your house to make sure doesn't have any high cap mags inside. Still fails the 4th amendment test.

  20. #20
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by jad316 View Post
    How many people are going to MW meeting?
    I am going and I will speak! Please remember dress appropriately and don't be abusive, it will only work against us. If you want to "PROTEST" wait til after the vote and do it outside! The law does not go into effect till 12 days after it is signed. This is the last chance for us to prevent this.

    Come out, speak appropriately and let's see if we can prevent this "Infringement" of our 2A rights. The odds are against us but you never know. Perhaps reason can overcome a lack of informatiomn or incorrect information.
    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

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by xc9subcompact View Post
    I don't want to change this thread.
    While the CA statute has it written in that they can inspect, a check over on the CA forum seems to point out that this is a 4th amendment rights violation.
    The analogy is that they could write a statute that allows the police to inspect the interior of your house to make sure doesn't have any high cap mags inside. Still fails the 4th amendment test.

    Does it matter?
    Do you want the anti's stirred up like they are over it in cali trying to violate 2a, 4a rights?

    We have some great laws in mo, that changed a lot over the last ten, pushing ones agenda in a real in your face manner has repercussions that have been seen elsewhere and are being seen in Maplewood. Sitting around ways to skirt the laws, the proposed laws is a real good way to get the anti's fired up to work harder at the state level.

    We lost em a little at a time, we got em back a little at the same time, no reason to shift the tides back.

    Boycott Maplewood and their business's and let em know, sure. Disable a firearm and sport it around so you draw unnecessary attention within a community that has already spoken clearly they do not want this and are willing to trample your rights to prevent it, well that is just kind of stupid.

    The dog has been poked, its awake now, lets not give it rabies and watch it run wild, let it lay its head down and go back to sleep.

    If we can keep anyone from getting exploited, perhaps ext year something like HB841 can get through and then the following year something that eliminates the requirement to pay for it comes along, but as far as this year goes, its over, the legislators KNOW the dog is awake and they are NOT going to get bit.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    I am going and I will speak! Please remember dress appropriately and don't be abusive, it will only work against us. If you want to "PROTEST" wait til after the vote and do it outside! The law does not go into effect till 12 days after it is signed. This is the last chance for us to prevent this.

    Come out, speak appropriately and let's see if we can prevent this "Infringement" of our 2A rights. The odds are against us but you never know. Perhaps reason can overcome a lack of informatiomn or incorrect information.
    Unless I am forced to work, I am speaking.

    Protesting outside would have nothing but a bunch of media spinning it into something it never was, the protest has little if any point and will just fuel the fire that is already burning.

  23. #23
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Lets poke that dog!!

    Let us look at the history of poking the "dog".

    Pilgrams...they came here why?

    Boston Tea Party...protesting what?

    First shot at Concord...what was that all about?

    MLK....if he didn't poke the dog then who did?

    I say poke it, I say kick it...

    If they want to pass a law based on fear then go to it.....the constitution is what it is....it will not change...and if they decide to change it, then 1776 will repeat.

    I am not saying we need a "rebellion" but we do need to stand up...so if poking a rabid dog is what it takes, then so be it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member xc9subcompact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Secure Undisclosed
    Posts
    106
    Consider that the 3 minute limit is per speaker. Coordination between each speaker could allow a more effective presentation, allowing more total time for each point made.

    Potential talking points:

    1. Hastily drawn up and passed laws are usually bad laws. Since time usually allows for calmer heads to prevail, it is recommended that the city table this proposal for future analysis.
    2. OC carry has been legal in the state of MO for decades. Most towns and cities do not ban OC. Consider the possibilities of the unintended consequesnces the proposed ban would have.
    3. The laws of the state of MO allow for OC. While the laws do allow for a city ban on functional OC, they do not allow for a ban on non-functional OC. Passing this ban could lead to unneeded expensive legal complications for the city, while also placing the police into a difficult legal situation as they try to enforce the new city ordinance. It is unfair to the police to require them to take on the added responsibility of enforcing an unneeded law. It would be simpler to educate the police that OC is legal in MO. This would eliminate unneeded police responses to MWAG calls.
    4. In light of Heller and McDonald, the plain reading of the MO constitution - "Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons." is that the OC of a firearm is a protected right. The provision of RSMO 21.750 (3) that allows the city to ban OC is sure to be challenged in court, leading to unneccessary legal cost to the city during tough economic times.
    5. Alienating law abiding citizens by passing hopolophobic laws will likely result in economic boycotts of the city, where sales tax revenue is crucial to the city in providing adequate services to it's residents.


    Please add to the list.
    Last edited by xc9subcompact; 04-10-2011 at 12:32 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Unless I am forced to work, I am speaking.

    Protesting outside would have nothing but a bunch of media spinning it into something it never was, the protest has little if any point and will just fuel the fire that is already burning.
    I agree, and if anyone wants to "protest" do it AFTER the vote. It will get you nothing except media coverage, which does no one any good.
    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

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
  •