Missourians: Email addresses of those sueing against CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grayrider

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
996
Location
Missouri Ozarks
I found a nice list of the people who filed the suit against CCW in Missouri. A little footwork on my part got most of their email addresses. Here they are should anyone want to express your feelings to them. Note the list contains a number of outspoken critics of the war on terror.

Mayor Pro Tem Alvin Brooks
[email protected]

Hazelwood Police Chief Carl Wolf
[email protected]

Bishop Willie James Ellis, New Northside Baptist Church in St. Louis
Could not find this one.

Pastor B.T. Rice, New Horizon Christian Church in St. Louis
Could not find. He is openly opposed to the war on terror.

St. Louis Alderman Lyda Krewson
May be emailed via this web site: http://stlcin.missouri.org/index/contactald.cfm?Ward=28

Jackson County legislator Scott Burnett
[email protected]
Openly opposes war on terror, and is one of the politicians who introduced anti-war legislation when we invaded Iraq

St. Louis-based nonprofit group called the Institute for Peace and Justice (anti-American peacenik religious nuts)
[email protected]
http://www.ipj-ppj.org/

Three Democratic senators who voted against the bill are also plaintiffs: Sens. Joan Bray, Rita Heard Days and Maida Coleman, all of St. Louis.

You can email them from these web sites. Here is a zip+4 code in Missouri you can use: 64127-3908
http://www.senate.state.mo.us/03info/members/mem24.htm
http://www.senate.state.mo.us/03info/members/mem14.htm
http://www.senate.state.mo.us/03info/members/mem05.htm

GR
 
Good info, but these folks are mostly a bunch of kooks and the fact that some got elected says a great deal about their constituency. E-mailing them won't help much.
 
Careful, folks. I think it's a waste of time; but if you do Email these people, be polite. Don't give them any 'ammo' which they may stretch into claims of "harrassment".

IMHO They have a VERY WEAK CASE and our side has a VERY STRONG one.

The press hasn't been too bad lately, and I think that the General Public is pretty much on our side.

We don't need to muddy the water.

That's my 2cents worth. :D
 
emails

they were flicked off like they were flys on them...you know you just cant change stupid....i thought maybe they were just ignorant of all the correct info..but i dont think so..i think they have an agenda and dont care if is right or wrong
 
Sent e-mails to all of them.
Not sure how polite I was.
Nothing real harsh.

I did tell them that I thought that any person that would qualify for a CCL should be able to sue them and the state of Missouri if some thing happen to them. For instance if a qualified person be raped, robbed, stabbed or shot then the should be able to sue because there oppurtunity was denied to be allowed to protect themselves. If concealed carry be overturned.
 
As per my suggestion on the other thread on this, I emailed them suggesting that should they win there will be suits arguing that police officers can no longer carry concealed in Missouri. Their argument is that concealed carry is completely unconstitutional. Police are not exempt from such rulings, and this has kept departments in Missouri from issuing silenced firearms or using certain types of ammunition. Those items are specifically outlawed in Missouri, and LEOs are no exception. Perhaps the stigma of being the politicians that prevented police officers from carrying firearms undercover and off duty would be enough to cause them to drop the suit.

GR
 
IMHO NOTHING would make these people drop their suit. The only way to beat them is to DEFEAT them.

That is what we must do in court and if we should be unsuccessful there then we must carry the fight by election or referendum to the balot box and beat them there.

I also think it is time that we start giving serious thought as to how to bring a run-a-way Judicial System, with ranks filled by activist judges bent on legislating from the bench, back to the role established by the constitutions of the states and the United States. If the Judical System will not reign these people in, then we may be approaching a point where these judges will need to be impeached or otherwise recalled.

Gee, that looks like about 4 cents worth. :D
 
I offer my opinion, DO NOT PUT YOUR BASIC RIGHTS UP FOR A VOTE! Look what happened the last time this was tried. I know that a vote on CCW would in all probability go well but why take the chance? How about a high profile shooting incident right before the vote? Does anyone remember the work-place shooting that gave your Governor the excuse to veto the CCW package? Al
 
Al in Md,

I agree with you; but, in the unlikely event that the Missouri Supreme Court should strike this down on "Constitutional" grounds, then we would be dealing with a much larger problem which may ultimately require a fix at the ballot box.

I personally do not think this is likely because I think that the current suit is frivilous and without merit and am confident that the Missouri Supreme Court will uphold the new ccw law.

There remains, however, a problem with "activist" judges across the nation and the electorate may have to deal with this at some point if our Justice System, the Congress, and our State Legislatures continue to refuse to do so. :D
 
I'm VERY tempted to don a hypothetical white sheet, and e-mail them, thanking them for maintaining Missouri as one of the six remaining states which have maintained their hold on the most oppressive of the Jim Crow laws...

Something on the order of "All white-thinking people woud like to thank you for helping us maintane the sanctity of the white race."

Ahh, but this probably wouldn't be taking the high road...

Now, where can I find a nice disposable e-mail address...
 
I received a couple of e-mails back from some of the plaintiffs that I sent them to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From : [email protected] Save to Address Book | Block Sender

To : [email protected]

Subject : Re: Concealed Carry


Date : Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:41:31 -0500

Thank you for your e-mail. If you would like to call our office and speak
with Councilman Brooks, the number is (816) 513-1602. If you would like
Councilman Brooks to contact you...please feel free to e-mail a contact
number. Please refrain from any name-calling or profanity in any future
e-mails. I am sure they do not reflect your message or the person that you
are.

Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last statement kinda ticked me off because I DID NOT use any profanity in my e-mail and I am sure that I did not call him any names.


Another one, this one is the Sheriff that is listed as a plaintiff:

His message:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone has their own opinion, to bad yours is so screwed up!

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 10:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Concealed Carry



Dear Sir,

You have made me ashamed for the first time in my life to be a resident of
Missouri.
I think that what you are trying to do is a terrible mistake.
Not allowing the citizens of Missouri the opportunity to protect themselves
if need be. You of all people should know that the police can not be every
where at once. I think that if this law is overturned then you Sir should be
held responsible if anything should happen to someone who would have
qualified for a concealed carry liscence. If anyone be raped, robbed, shot,
etc.. they should be allowed to sue the state of Missouri for not allowing
them the opportunity to protect themselves.
It makes me sick at my stomach that you have no problem continuing to put
the honest law abiding citizens of Missouri at risk.
You are only allowing the criminals to continue to have the upper hand.
You need to educate yourself on the facts. How many other states have had a
problem with concealed carry? Has crime went down after the law has been
passed? Has anyone with a CCL been convicted of a felony after they received
a liscence? How can you ignore the facts and continue to by into this hype
that CCL is going to cause a less safe environment.


Kent Perks
Kansas City, MO
 
Last edited:
My email to Lyda Krewson and the others:

Subject: Why do you support violence?

Body: I am appalled that you would support a lawsuit to prevent implementation of a law (concealed carry) that has been shown unequivocally to reduce violent crime in 31 + states, by impeccable, peer-reviewed, multiple-regression-analysis methods (John Lott). I can only conclude that you support violence, since you oppose a measure which has been proven to reduce it. You obviously want to make the streets safer for the average criminal and want to stop women from being able to prevent rape and domestic abuse directed toward them. Shame on you for that!

Signed: St. Louis resident. :evil:
 
Here is Carl Wolf's email reply to me. It's telling:

"That why its a free country. We have the right to choose what we want to do. That's why I fought in Vietnam (2 tours) to protect that right that I just exercised. Not so some nut could carry a gun to act like a big shot. If you want to carry a gun so bad, strap one on your hip and carry it, that's legal in Missouri. There is more domestic abuse with weapons in states that have concealed carry and there are also more accidental shooting with children. Let me do my job, which I do very well and have for over 33 years. No I'm not ashamed of what I did, and I will keep doing it until the Supreme Court tells me differently. Then I will uphold the law which I am sworn to do. The reduction in crime in those states were due to good policing not concealed guns. Thank You."

And my reply to him:

"You *should* be ashamed, because people who try to open carry as you suggest are promptly arrested in St. Louis on a bogus charge of "threatening" or some such, so there IS no right to carry arms in the urban counties, as a practical matter, and you are supporting the effort to make sure that this continues. Good policing my butt. Lott's work is called science - learn about it. Your beliefs are called "unsubstantiated speculation", and as such, should be abandoned. I'm ashamed that a veteran could be so anti-freedom and anti-Constitution. How does it feel continually violating the lifelong oath you took to defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the 2nd amendment? Perhaps you should read it again. Shall not be infringed, get it? You DON'T have a right to ignore that oath as you're obviously doing. I hope you choose a career change that is not so detrimental to the safety of the public (other than the criminals). PS. I guess YOU carry a gun because YOU'RE a nut who wants to act like a big shot, correct? Why else would you carry one? Or don't you?"

So we're getting under his skin. :evil: Sick 'em!!!
 
BTT

Did you see guys catch this - Mr. Wolf is actually having a dialogue with me - read his unbelievable comments in his reply email to me in the next previous post above, and be sure to let him have it yourselves!

His latest reply to my last few sentences in my reply to him is this:

"Only when I need to, to protect the law abiding citizens. You just answered my question about why you want to carry a gun!"

And my reply:

"Ooooh, I see - it's NOT to protect yourself - just the citizens - well, ok, that makes sense if true, but methinks you lie. I think you'd use it to protect yourself in a pinch, but I can't get in your head and prove what I know - that you're a liar."
 
Maybe instead of emails, someone should send these guys copies of John Ross's book with certain sections hilighted :)

Seeing how this is Missouri, the parallels will be obvious enough for even these dimwits to see.
 
My goodness, Grayrider, Wolf is truly a moron - he thinks the right to not read your emails to him is based in the Constitution. I think it's the 35th amendment - "Congress shall make law forcing imbecilic police chiefs to read the emails of his constituents." Certainly it's his right, but in the constitution?

And as he said, "[his] officers have the right to carry concealed." He certainly doesn't agree that his officers will be disarmed, should his lawsuit succeed. Therein lies the fundamental problem.

Then this quote by him is telling of his stupidity:

"I'm just protecting them [his officers] from looney individuals who would carry a gun, without a permit, concealed in the passenger compartment of a vehicle."

First, they WOULD have a permit - that's the whole point of the law, get it? Second, it would be on their person, as the law required, not in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. Three, looneys are going to do that, law or no law. Sheesh, it's just head-banging time - what can you do when they have zero logic. Grrrrr.
 
It is really troubling to ready his responses. I am truly schocked that this fellow is the chief of police in a decently large community. He clearly has little education or intellect. I am not just saying that to be insulting--it is apparent from his emails. I feel sorry for the people who live under his jurisdiction and the LEOs who work under him. It must be a nightmare to try and operate in his department. Can you imagine how he responds to suggestions from his subordinants that are counter to his own, no matter how well reasoned? I wonder what the turnover rate is like in that PD?

GR
 
Carl Wolf is a loose cannon who should be removed from office.

Like my earlier post said, I sent a "nice" email to him, stating my position as a responsible CHL holder in Oregon.

He responded with name calling, the Vietnam 2 tours thing and his need to educate "his officers from ignorant people like me." He also stated that the voters didn't want concealed handgun carry and they said so in 1999.

I sent him a terse second email, which has not been responded to yet, as I don't believe he has the guts. I stated my years in the military, when I volunteered to go to Nam at age 17, when we then we gave up and ended the war, my years working in the legal arena, and plain facts about my awesome responsibilities as a CHL holder.

Sheriff Carl Wolf is, again, a loose cannon who was informed by a noncitizen of MO that one day the citizenry will tire of his attitude, at which time he'll be out on his A$$.

I'd be really surprised if he responds to my latest, and I'm positive people have gotten under his skin. He was working quite late last night.

:neener:
 
Keep up the good work.

Also if anyone has time please e-mail the other plaintiffs on the list.

We Missourians appreciate it.

Thank you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Missouri: "Opponents File Lawsuit Against Concealed-Guns Law"
Replies
5
Views
388
clange
C
C
  • Locked
Missouri: "Lawsuit isn't likely to dampen concealed gun growth"
Replies
0
Views
542
cuchulainn
C
C
  • Locked
Missouri: "Missouri Senate endorses ban on suits against gun makers"
Replies
2
Views
568
Russ
R
J
  • Locked
Missouri: Concealed gun law has little impact
Replies
15
Views
674
Turkey Creek
T
D
  • Locked
Appeals court rejects St. Louis city's lawsuit against gunmakers
Replies
0
Views
273
Desertdog
D
Back
Top