• 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.

Crime In Maplewood

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
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:

cshoff

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
687
Location
, Missouri, USA
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.
 

LMTD

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

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
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:

LMTD

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

zekester

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
664
Location
Uvalde, Texas
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
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
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.
 

jad316

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Imperial, Missouri.
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.
 

LMTD

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

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
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.
 

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
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:

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
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.
 

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
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?
 

LMTD

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

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Thanks to all of you for giving more ammunition to the anti's for Tuesday's meeting. I'm sure they appreciate it also.
 

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
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.
 

mspgunner

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