It is not so much "support" for Mr. Darrow but support for 2nd amendment rights. If every open carry person behaved like he did I would not be so supportive of rights. However, he is an exception to the rule. Many who open carry have made friends with law enforcement officers who understand the laws and are appreciative of citizens (especially those with CCW permits) taking responsibility for thier own protection. There are Cities in St. Louis Co. who permit open carry for those who have a CCW permit. Interestingly if a law enforcement officer sees a firearm or if there is a call that someone has been seen with a firearm that did not exactly conceal well an officer may approach that person and request to see their CCW permit if sucha permit is required that City (a bit of an opinion on that). There is a middle of the road here for Maplewood, they can modify their proposal and require those who wich to open carry to have a CWW permit, this is doen in many cities in St. Louis County. Such an approach by the City of Maplewood may well quell the concerns on both sides of the issue as well as give the police more lattitude in such cases. There is a difference between open carry and "pointing a firearm at some one", that is clearly not only irresponsible but brandishing certainly is illegal.

The author is still a bit mis-informed regarding current Missouri law.

[Carrying an unconcealed gun—a practice often referred to as "open carry"—is legal with a permit in Missouri unless its outlawed by local ordinances.]

By Missouri statutes, Open carry is legal statewide, for anyone who may legally own a firearm. No "PERMIT" required. Political subdivisions may restrict or limit Open carry within their juristiction.

To the best of my knowledge, Maplewood has never restriced or required a permit to exercise the citizens right of Open Carry. Is the Maplewood City Council freightened by their constituents?

Marc,
Hope I didn't steal your thunder.

“Comments in an online forum that encouraged carriers of unconcealed firearms to attend Maplewood's Coffee Crawl on April 30 led the Maplewood City Council to draft an ordinance banning the practice known as "open carry."
I am having a bit of a problem with this opening paragraph. So the council is specifically drafting legislation to intentionally exclude persons whom have broken no laws and participate in an online forum dedicated to the education of any citizen whom seeks to carry a firearm to do so safely and legally at all times. I will have to apologize for that simply not making sense, I am simply not used to seeing laws enacted to prevent legal activities based upon the parties that might participate in those events. Sounds a lot like discriminatory practices on the part of the council, dangerous ground for sure.

“Supporters of open carry planned to attend the event to show their support for Brett Darrow following an encounter at Walmart on March 12 where Darrow was arrested, according to comments in the forum.”
This is not accurate, the members of the site mentioned support the right of ALL citizens to exercise their rights in a legal and peaceful manner. Mr. Darrow’s legal issues within the city of Maplewood are indeed being questioned as it remains very unclear as to whether Mr. Darrow broke any laws or committed any act to warrant police interaction. Arrested is correct, but what are the charges? Were there any? Are we condoning arresting folks for legal activities?

“The city immediately drafted such an ordinance and brought it before city council during its March 22 meeting in an effort to outlaw open carry before the Coffee Crawl. The ban received initial approval at that meeting but it will require a final approval during a April 12 meeting. Ordinances don't become effective until 15 days after passing through city council.”
So the council has decided that after nearly 110 years of freedom they are the ones to decide whom should be excluded from a publicly sponsored event? They are making this decision based upon the preferences of the parties to open carry vs concealed carry, that is an interesting decision. Will Blue shirts be allowed as I am not a fan of red ones.

“What's the difference between this
and conceal and carry? What if he was cooperative? At least the police
and people knew that he was carrying one."
The difference? About 1 millimeter of cotton cloth.

“ You could even it point it at someone with impunity.”
No, that would be a minimum of brandishing and if there was an implied threat a charge of assault or assault with a deadly weapon would result aka a felony.

Open carry is a very hot topic right now nationwide. 43 states allow it, and of the few that don't there are open carry or concealed carry laws going through the legislative processes right now. Florida looks like it may get open Carry within a few months, and there are rumors that Washington DC may be forced to abandon it's gun laws. What the city is doing is in effect banning carrying unless you have a permit. The state constitution says, "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."

They will be disarming and forcing good people to go defenseless and I can see that there will be some very expensive lawsuits happening soon, and not good suits either, because there is enough case law to overcome the ordinance and to almost guarantee a large settlement that the city will have to pay.

It seems to me that the city should have spoken to the folks who wanted to carry at the event, and discuss this with them first instead of a knee jerk reaction that will almost certainly guarantee that they will not be re-elected.

I would encourage the city to reconsider.

"There was a need based on the threat from the open carry people to disrupt the Coffee Crawl," Corcoran said in a phone interview."

Where on God's green earth did Mr. Corcoran come up with this notion?? When he accuses law abiding Citizens of Missouri who are simply exercising their rights...as being a "THREAT" and then to also accuse them further of planning to "DISRUPT" the Coffee Crawl event, he is blatantly putting forth for public display his own ignorance and bias.

This comment from Mr. Corcoran was put forth without any shred of evidence whatsoever and Mr. Corcoran owes all law abiding citizens of the state of Missouri a public apology immediately!!

Unbelievable!!!!

As the person who suggested attending this event, I stand by my statement. It is obvious that Maplewood city council members are more than just a little foggy on firearm rights, they are openly hostile. The article itself, and quotes from councilpersons within, reveal the truth of my previous statement. At the end is a correction to the previous version THAT WAS IN ERROR concerning firearms law. Councilperson Greenberg himself is also quoted as saying:
"My concern is that we would send a message (yes, it's a stretch) that it is OK to sit on your front porch or stand in your front yard and openly display a weapon. You could even it point it at someone with impunity."
HOLY COW! The person pushing the hardest about amending city ordinances reveals his complete IGNORANCE OF STATE LAW as the removal of a firearm from its holster in an angry or threatening manner is ALREADY ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE IN MISSOURI.
Yet, I still stand by my above statement. Not only are Maplewood city council members (with the exception of Mr. Faulkingham, who I applaud for providing a calm sense of reason and attention to unintended consequences.) ignorant of firearms law, they desire to enforce that ignorance and remain so (as evidenced in the article) by enacting ordinances discriminating against law abiding citizens wishing to provide education in a peaceful manner. I guess the only option for freedom loving Americans is to financially support other community's coffee businesses.

As a Maplewood Resident , I am in full support of this action. I also believe that each of them will be reelected. Its funny how the people raising the stink here about this arent even from Maplewood. You guys should stay in you own communitys and fight you wild west battles.

So why WOULDN'T we want to send the message to our children that carrying a firearm for personal protection is a perfectly acceptable, rational, and lawful practice? The right to protect one's self from a violent criminal and/or a tyrannical government is so fundamental, that it is forever codified and protected in both our Federal Constitution and our State Constitution. It's a real shame that these elected officials (with the noted exception of Mr. Faulkingham), are so ignorant of our laws and indeed, the very foundation of our freedoms and liberties, that they would attempt to infringe on such a fundamental right because they are scared and ignorant.

A big part of freedom is allowing others to exercise their rights in a lawful manner even if you don't agree with them. These folks need to go back and read the Federalist Papers and our Constitution.

I dont exactly understand what you guys are so afraid of to have to wear your gun everywhere. I have never wore a gun in my life and I feel very safe, beyond that I have lived a life free of crime. You guys are really paranoid fearmongers if you ask me.

Charles,

I am 53, married 38yrs....a Father of 6 grown children and 16 grandchildren. I am a Military veteran. I am active in my local church. I offer this little bio to let you know that Iam about as "average Joe" as you will ever meet. I consider myself level-headed, rational, intelligent and sensitive to other peoples point of view. I am also law-abiding. I am anything but "paranoid and fear-mongering."

With all due respect, and I say this sincerely....in my opinion, your concerns appear to be based upon unfounded fears and a sincere ignorance of the law and of our rights as Americans and Missouri citizens. I say this with no malice or ill intent, for I have some in my immediate family who harbor similar views.

I am a firm believer in the philosphy of "seek first to understand, then to be understood". I think if you used this model as you approached this issue of "Open Carry" I feel confident that you will come away with a fuller understanding and appreciation of what it is that "Open Carry/2A" supporters are truly advocating. We may share more common ground than what either of us may think, and that my friend is what we truly want.

With all due respect to the open carry crowd's 2nd Amendment rights, I think one of the concerns of the Maplewood City Council is that a community event, that is in no way related to gun control/open carry, might be used as a publicity stunt by several individuals who are going to proudly wear their guns while they sip coffee, eat pastries, and enlighten the crowd about the many benefits of carrying a gun around all day. As a resident of Maplewood, and someone who takes my kids to these types of local events (the Coffee Crawl, etc.), I share the same concern as the city council, and I support what they are doing. So, to those who support open carry, I respect your rights, however, I ask that you please not use a community event in our town, that is completely unrelated to this topic, as a rally point for your movement. Organize your own rally, book club, whatever, so that those people who are interested in attending and learning about your cause can do so. I, for one, do not want to live in a community where people feel the need to carry weapons, and Maplewood is not that kind of community.

Wow, there is a lot of passion in the gun community that is really clear! I can commend you all on your well versed knowledge of your second amendment rights. I think all of the open carry supporters should be well aware of these next points, really rendering their arguments futile.

1. The Maplewood city council is going to enact an ordinance that makes open carry illegal in the city of Maplewood.
2. Upon that enaction, we all know now that all the folks that support open carry are going to boycott Maplewood and its businesses.
3. When the boycott happens we will no longer be graced by the open carriers so willing to protect us, which is fine by me.

Thanks alot guys for all your concern for my protection. Just to let you know I dont want any one who is an open carry advocate that is not in law enforcement or in the military protecting me. Here in my community of Maplewood we get to know our neighbors and look out for one another. None of us are packing heat openly.

Thanks alot guys, hope to not see you all around.

Even if Maplewood bans "open carry", they can only ban "open carry of a firearm readily capable of lethal use" according to RsMO 21.750:
"3. 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 Missouri Courts have already ruled a gun that is missing a crucial part of it's operation makes it NOT readily capable of lethal use. This means, someone can take the barrel out of a handgun or another part, no one will know the difference, and they can openly carry it all day long, regardless of the Maplewood ordinance.

Matthew Hudson - Thank you for teaching & training your child. Although I do not advocate carrying weaons through Wal-Mart my children ARE trained to safely shoot & handle firearms & they are taken to safe areas to shoot often. I agree that forbidden fruit is too tempting to pass up. Your points on considerations before you pull your gun are also things I agree with. I commend you for thinking through the ramifications of your actions. I know that a very large majority of gun owners & proponents of open carry agree with you & have had similar thoughts. However, there are those out there who I don't believe would have the same thoughts to my safety & they scare me. They are the people who will carry to provoke - not to protect. If they have the opportunity to draw I fear they will be more caught up in the moment & either overestimate their abilities or just not try as hard as you to insure they have a clear shot. There may not be aything between them &the target, but do they know what is behind that target & can they actually hit it?
In general: Like any group there are going to be those who make the rest look bad. It's the bad cop, wicked stepmother & dumb blonde sterotypes. Unfortunately gun owners have the same bad seeds that get more press & make the rest look bad. They are the ones trying to take away all of our rights with their selfish & stupid actions.

Your previous point and this post make good points. Truely there is nothing to "fear" from OC. It's not threatening and eliminates guess work as to "If some one is armed". Almost 200,000 people carry in Missouri (125,000 with Missouri CCW permits and about 70,000 with other State permits.) They even carry in Wal-Marts, legally and Wal-Mart's "Official" policy is to abide by State and local laws. There are numerous cases where armed robberies have been "AVOIDED" because some one who was casing an establishment turned and ran because a coffee shop or resturant was occupied by folks sitting quietly having dinner or coffee while openly carrying. Fear the person, not the firearm. On Missouri 2nd amendment sites many say they will no longer visit, shop or travel through Maplewood. The City of Maplewood has the opportunity to shed new light on the City by hanging out the welcome sign "WE APPRECIATE THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND WELCOME ALL TO THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD".

Randy,

Some good points but your last statement about this being about "personal bias and/or unjustified fear mongering" is not accurate or fair.

This all came about because someone chose to get confrontational with the police. One bad apple brings unwanted scrutiny.

This is not about bias or fear. I like to target shoot and voted in favor of CCW. It provides anyone who whishes to the means to arm themselves with appropriate regulation. With freedom comes responsibility. I am fine with that.

With open carry a person is marking themselves as hostile. That is not bias. You are displaying a weapon in the open in public. I hope this is not coming off as flippant but it is no different than if I walked through the store with a sword or pick axe over my shoulder.

There is nothing to prove in carrying. That is fine. Obtain a CCW, keep yourself trained, and exercise responsibility. I don't ask for anything else.

Hillarious. Cop cars are are a bigger danger? Wow.

It is because of incidents like this that I want Maplewood to keep OC off our streets. If the issue was not pushed, no big deal but some decided to push the issue.

Get a CCW since you are a law abiding person and you have no complaint. What is your problem with that?

The "Mayor" has an attitude, he had a "speech" ready for the "public comment" time, after thr public spoke of course so no one could respond. For a guy who took the class and carries a firearm, he sure lacks knowledge of Missouri firearms laws and the rights of the Constitution of the State of Missouri and the Bill of Rights. His firearm instructor, his civics teacher in school and people of Missouri now know where he stands. He does not support constitutional rights or have a basic understanding of what "Shall not be Infringed" means. The 200,000 people in Missouri dim the lights on Maplewood. I WILL DO BUSINESS SOME PLACE ELSE!

Brett -

Here's what I found on Fire Lane signs.

The Fire Department is authorized to direct installation of approved signs or other approved notices for the identification of fire lanes. The purpose is to prevent obstruction of required emergency vehicle access.

In my opinion, the police vehicle would be considered a form of an emergency vehicle. By the looks of your photo, with 3 police vehicles in the fire lane, there must be a good reason the emergency vehicles are parked in the fire lane.

This is only my opinion, based on your photo. It would be very helpful if you could expand on why they are parked in the fire lane. Do you know is there an emergency? If your trying to make a point with your photo, you should probably include some detail information as to what is going on to support your intentions of your post.

Per PD policy.... if an LEO is responding to an "emergency" he's required to leave his lights on...on his vehicle thereby alerting those in close proximity to make an effort to steer clear of the area because other emergency vehicles may be responding.

In this instance since his, an the the other LEO vehicles are not shown to be responding to an emergency, one can rightly assume an emergency does NOT exist.

I don’t think I can argue with you, if that’s policy. You are correct.

I think you win the policy debate, I just did a google search on fire lanes and went with what I found on Wikipedia. It sounded REASONABLE to me. Never occurred to me to go dig through the city code to ensure the code is being followed 100%.

Reasonable person? I would expect any reasonable person to see the situation for what it is. Police are there to pick up a shoplifter. They park in the fire lane, go in and do their business, if they get a higher priority call, they can quickly get to their next destination. The situations can go on and on why they should or should not park there, why they should have their emergency lights on, why is there 4 of them, why are they parked there in the first place etc. etc. etc.

I’m curious, Why does this situation bother you? I see a couple of police vehicles parked in the fire lane, no emergency lights on. Do I see a real problem here that needs addressed. Not really, but I’m probably not being reasonable!

RRM,

You say..."I would expect any reasonable person to see the situation for what it is. Police are there to pick up a shoplifter. They park in the fire lane, go in and do their business, if they get a higher priority call, they can quickly get to their next destination. "

Fact remains...simply picking up a "shoplifter" or doing other "police business" is NOT considered an emergency...thus they should not be parking in a fire lane which are to be utilized only by Emergency Responders to an "emergency" in the truest sense of the word.

The Fire lanes were not intended to be used by LEO's as their quasi-"LEO of the year" parking space.

I do believe police officers do respond to emergencies so even though dealing with a shoplifter isn’t necessarily an emergency, if an emergency occurs which requires the officer to quickly get to a new location, they can respond more effectively to the situation by running out the front of the store to their vehicle parked up front, compared to running across the parking lot. So in my opinion, not only is it reasonable where they are parked, for anyone that would need their help, it is preferred.

If I may suggest to anyone who is interested in Missouri firearms there is a very good web page sponsored by the Missouri Shooters Association:
www.missouricarry.com

The bottom line: get your Missouri CCW endorsement and you won't have to worry about this silly ban in Maplewood. Carrying a concealed firearms will keep the bad guys guessing :)
It is also lawful to carry a loaded firearm in your vehicle in Missouri. But please keep it in a gunlocker when you are not in the vehicle so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

But Marc, this is not about carrying with a permit.