• 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.

The final VOTE in Maplewood!

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Does anyone know the exact wording the ordinance used? Was, "readily capable of lethal use" in there? I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled a Fenton and made it illegal for EVERYONE including LE.

Also, on the agenda was something for the "Police Asset Sharing fund". Could someone please tell me what that is?

I almost went tonight to ask them why they are passing new laws when their cops can't even follow or understand the ones on the books now. This was at the Wal-Mart yesterday. This was certainly more danger to the citizens in Wal-Mart than me open carrying.

S1090002.jpg



Maplewood City Code
Sec. 50-240. - Fire lanes.
No person shall park or leave unattended a motor vehicle on any portion of a fire lane or on any portion of a parking lot or private way not properly designated as a parking space.

EDIT: No I was not shopping there. I was there to meet an employee about my arrest.
 
Last edited:

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
From Ryan Martin, editor of the Brentwood Maplewood Patch:
"By my count, Maplewood City Council publicly discussed three out of 15 agenda items tonight.
42 minutes ago via TweetDeck"

Do you think they jumped right to the last item on the agenda?
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
FYI for anyone thinking of protesting for the next 15 days so to speak, DON'T.

At the beginning of the meeting there was a quick vote on making the decisions immediate and I would suspect anyone open carrying today would indeed be risking their freedom.

None of us were completely clear on what was said just prior to that vote.
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
I went up to city hall today to get a copy of the ordinance. It did in fact pass 6-1 I believe she said.

Here is the ordinance. Looks like you could park your car on one side of town and walk home openly carrying an unloaded gun and back to your car legally. They also included the "readily capable of lethal use" clause.

S1110001.jpg


S1110002.jpg
 

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Also, part 'F' of the ordinance already states "Nothing in this section shall be construed to forbid United States marshals, sheriffs, constables and their deputies, and any regular, special or ex officio police officer, or any other law enforcement officer of the United States, the state, the county or the city, or any other authorized member of the city government from carrying or wearing, while on duty, such weapons as shall be necessary in the proper discharge of their duties."

So those off-duty cops better be concealing off they are breaking the open carry ordinance.
 

lancers

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

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
Last night 6 of us went to the City of Maplewood City Council meeting to ask them to oppose a local ordinance to prohibit open carry in the City of Maplewood. One resident made o short support statement. Of course they approved it. We dressed well made our case in a civil appropriate manner. After the public forum was over the Honorable Mayor (Who happens to have a CCW permit) proceeded to compare those who support our 2A rights to the low life idiots from Kansas who protest military funerals! This guy was a total idiot.

I just emailed my State Senator and State Representative! I encourage everyone to do the same.

The two of you are my elected House and Senate Representatives and you both ran ran on a pro-2A platform. The question - "What are you doing to prevent infringement of our second amendment rights". The infringement continues due to a State Statute that allows local bozos to enact such local ordinances. The State of Missouri, through the legislature has the votes and ability to protect our rights.
Please act!

Name
Address
Phone #
 

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
i would park down the street and have a couple unloaded shotguns on my shoulders, and walk very slowly.

in protest, of course.

next time i see someone walking around wal-mart with a baseball bat, i will call the LEO stating someone is walking around with a weapon readily capable of lethal use. or maybe a handsaw?
 

LMTD

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

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Last night 6 of us went to the City of Maplewood City Council meeting to ask them to oppose a local ordinance to prohibit open carry in the City of Maplewood. One resident made o short support statement. Of course they approved it. We dressed well made our case in a civil appropriate manner. After the public forum was over the Honorable Mayor (Who happens to have a CCW permit) proceeded to compare those who support our 2A rights to the low life idiots from Kansas who protest military funerals! This guy was a total idiot.

I just emailed my State Senator and State Representative! I encourage everyone to do the same.

The two of you are my elected House and Senate Representatives and you both ran ran on a pro-2A platform. The question - "What are you doing to prevent infringement of our second amendment rights". The infringement continues due to a State Statute that allows local bozos to enact such local ordinances. The State of Missouri, through the legislature has the votes and ability to protect our rights.
Please act!

Name
Address
Phone #

I'm prepared to do the same. but, I'd like to get a good electronic copy of the ordinance also. I especially want the first piece, where it's explained why this is an "emergency". I think that showing the rationale for why it's an emergency, as well as the typos in the ordinance, show just what level of silliness we're dealing with.
 

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
Please help me understand the new ordinance.

Here is a link to the pre-ban code:

http://library.municode.com/HTML/14510/level3/PII_C34_AVII.html#PII_C34_AVII_s34-200
Sec. 34-200. - Weapons generally.

(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person to wear under his clothes, or to conceal about his person, or to display in a threatening manner, any dangerous or deadly weapon including, but not by way of limitation, any pistol, revolver, slingshot, blackjack, cross-knuckles or knuckles of lead, brass or other material, or any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, razor or any knife resembling a bowie knife or having a blade in excess of 2½ inches in length, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon.

(b)
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer to sell, display, use, possess or carry any knife having the appearance of a pocketknife, the blade of which can be opened by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle or other mechanical contrivance. Any such knife is hereby declared to be a dangerous or deadly weapon and shall be subject to forfeiture to the city as provided in this section.

(c)
No person shall sell to a minor under the age of 16 years, without the consent of that child's guardian or parents, any ammunition, firearms, or any deadly weapon.

(d)
No person other than a police officer shall discharge any firearms except during some patriotic celebration, or at some shooting match under the control of a responsible person.

(e)
Every person convicted of any violation of this section shall forfeit to the city such dangerous or deadly weapon so concealed or displayed.

(f)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to forbid United States marshals, sheriffs, constables and their deputies, and any regular, special or ex officio police officer, or any other law enforcement officer of the United States, the state, the county or the city, or any other authorized member of the city government from carrying or wearing, while on duty, such weapons as shall be necessary in the proper discharge of their duties.

(g)
It shall be the duty of every police officer, upon making an arrest and taking such a concealed weapon from the person of the offender, to deliver such weapon to the chief of police to be held by him until the final determination of the prosecution for such offense; and upon a finding of guilty, it shall then be the duty of the chief of police to dispose of such weapon as directed by the municipal judge.

(h)
It shall be unlawful for any person carrying an air weapon (as defined herein) to willfully enter or go upon the premises or property of another, or to fire or discharge any air weapon while on the premises or property of another, or to fire any projectile from an air weapon over, into through or across the premises or property of another without first having obtained the written permission from the owner, lessee or person in charge of such premises or property. It shall also be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any air weapon from, across or into any street, sidewalk, road, highway or any park. As used herein, the term "air weapon" shall mean any air rifle, air gun or pistol, BB gun, sling shot, spring gun or gun or rifle containing a gas-propelled cartridge, tear gas gun, vapor gas gun or any similar weapon, whether such be classed as a toy or not, which impels with force a projectile or pellet of any kind.

(i)
Subsection (a) of this section, as it applies to firearms, shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to RSMo 571.094 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

Now they are adding a new paragraph J which is supposed to read as:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to openly carry a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use. This section does not apply when an individual is transporting such weapons in a non-functioning state or in an unloaded state to and from his or her vehicle to his residence and from his or her residence to his or her vehicle."

Where is the penalty for this section? I don't get it. there are other offences on this webpage that specify the penalty right there in the same section. Does anyone else know where to find the penalty?

Also, it appears there is an exception for him or her to take the weapon to HIS residence from a vehicle, and also for him or her to take the weapon from his or her residence to his or her vehicle. But I don't see where it is OK for HER to take the weapon from HER vehicle to his or her residence?
 
Last edited:

lancers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
231
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Where is the penalty for this section? I don't get it. there are other offences on this webpage that specify the penalty right there in the same section. Does anyone else know where to find the penalty?

Also, it appears there is an exception for him or her to take the weapon to HIS residence from a vehicle, and also for him or her to take the weapon from his or her residence to his or her vehicle. But I don't see where it is OK for HER to take the weapon from HER vehicle to his or her residence?


My guess is the penalty will be whatever they want to make up since they don't care about rules or law over there in Maplewood. I'm past 2 weeks for my records request when they are required to give it to me with 3 business days. Sure didn't take them that long to complete the records request for Fox 2 news.

Yes, they also screwed up the ordinance and made it sexist. What a surprise. Another big FAIL FOR THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD. Going through their ordinances, it looks like when they redid them not long ago and forgot to add a lot of things.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
The fail is more obvious than that actually.

The council may regulate some things, but they are not as able to regulate PRIVATE property as they think IMHO.

Walmart is private but publicly accessible, your own property is not and concealed or not is questionable at the very best.

The mayor identified himself as an idiot and those whom opted to follow him have done the same, its over, its moot, and the reality is, they displayed their true colors, move along.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Please help me understand the new ordinance.

Here is a link to the pre-ban code:

http://library.municode.com/HTML/14510/level3/PII_C34_AVII.html#PII_C34_AVII_s34-200
Sec. 34-200. - Weapons generally.

(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person to wear under his clothes, or to conceal about his person, or to display in a threatening manner, any dangerous or deadly weapon including, but not by way of limitation, any pistol, revolver, slingshot, blackjack, cross-knuckles or knuckles of lead, brass or other material, or any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, razor or any knife resembling a bowie knife or having a blade in excess of 2½ inches in length, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon.

...

(i)
Subsection (a) of this section, as it applies to firearms, shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to RSMo 571.094 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

...

Also, it appears there is an exception for him or her to take the weapon to HIS residence from a vehicle, and also for him or her to take the weapon from his or her residence to his or her vehicle. But I don't see where it is OK for HER to take the weapon from HER vehicle to his or her residence?


I don't see a penalty other than confiscation of the firearm. Maybe that's intentional, who knows what they're thinking?

Most ordinances have a clause which says that pronouns of the male gender apply equally to the male and female genders, so they didn't have to go back and change all of their ordinances. This is actually a pretty common practice. Maplewood's can be read here: http://library.municode.com/HTML/14510/level2/PII_C1.html Section 1-3 a

What get me as being unusual about their ordinances is that subsection i permits me (as a CCW endorsement holder) to ignore the content of subsection a as it pertains to firearms. First, I'm not sure that's constitutional, I don't believe that Maplewood can restrict my ability to carry a weapon that is not a firearm. Secondly, I'm technically permitted to display my weapon in a threatening manager, since subsection i exempts me from subsection a. Now, I'm not going to be a test case for this, but this is the kind of law you get when amateurs try to practice it. I can conceal my weapon, and use it in a threatening manner (supposedly by brandishing it), but I cannot have it sitting peacefully on my hip. Oddly enough, looks like only police can discharge firearms unless you are at a match or some patriotic celebrations (huh?) So, using a gun in self-defense is technically illegal in Maplewood.
 

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
I don't see a penalty other than confiscation of the firearm. Maybe that's intentional, who knows what they're thinking?

Most ordinances have a clause which says that pronouns of the male gender apply equally to the male and female genders, so they didn't have to go back and change all of their ordinances. This is actually a pretty common practice. Maplewood's can be read here: http://library.municode.com/HTML/14510/level2/PII_C1.html Section 1-3 a

What get me as being unusual about their ordinances is that subsection i permits me (as a CCW endorsement holder) to ignore the content of subsection a as it pertains to firearms. First, I'm not sure that's constitutional, I don't believe that Maplewood can restrict my ability to carry a weapon that is not a firearm. Secondly, I'm technically permitted to display my weapon in a threatening manager, since subsection i exempts me from subsection a. Now, I'm not going to be a test case for this, but this is the kind of law you get when amateurs try to practice it. I can conceal my weapon, and use it in a threatening manner (supposedly by brandishing it), but I cannot have it sitting peacefully on my hip. Oddly enough, looks like only police can discharge firearms unless you are at a match or some patriotic celebrations (huh?) So, using a gun in self-defense is technically illegal in Maplewood.

My read of (a) is that you can't carry a concealed weapon of any type.
My read of (i) is that since you have a concealed weapon permit issued by just about anyone, you can ignore (a) only as it relates to a firearm.
They are referencing RSMo 571.094, which isn't there anymore. Not sure what impact that makes.
As I read RSMO 21.750, they can't make a law contrary to the state law as it relates to firearms, ammo, components.
I see nothing to stop them from regulating knives, brass knuckles, stuff like that.

I saw that part about celebratory gunfire. That is so the people at all of the Afghani weddings can celebrate in their traditional way!:banana:
(actually, for Parades on the 4th, funerals, etc they can have 21 gun salutes)
 
Last edited:

xc9subcompact

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
106
Location
Secure Undisclosed
From the mayor:
"Today a Maplewood police officer would generally not be able to stop an individual with an open carry to determine his or her identification. "

REALLY? They sure didn't know that on March 12th. Failure to train maybe?

I think he meant that was the way it was before they passed the ban.

I really like how they described you in the justification for the ban.
Do you have your gun back?
 
Top