Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Trying to change the Law

  1. #1
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235

    Trying to change the Law

    SIGH!!!! The title should be;

    Trying to CHANGE the Law

    I just hit the "Send" button a few seconds ago and thought I'd share it with you here. You may know (you SHOULD know) that currently we cannot carry loaded guns in our vehicles w/o a permit. I just think its unsafe to constantly have to unload to drive then reload to shop or w/e. So, I want to try to get Title 12 changed to allow OCers to carry a loaded firearm in our cars and in our holsters.

    This was sent to Gov. LaPage and both of my district State Reps. using the NRA contact link.
    http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-l...your-reps.aspx

    Senator Plowman:
    First I want to thank you for your stance on freedom and our 2nd Amendment Rights. Your courage and leadership is an inspiration to all freedom loving people everywhere.

    I am writing to you today about one small firearms restriction that I feel is a compromise to safety. I am an Open Carry advocate and to date we cannot legally Open Carry our sidearms in our vehicles without first unloading the ammunition unless we have a Concealed Carry Permit. This requires removing the ammo every time we enter our vehicles then reloading every time we get out to go about our normal activity.

    Now, if you know a little about firearms you can understand that this presents an opportunity for accidents through additional and needless handling of the firearm. In other words, the more you handle it the higher the chances of an accident.

    In the interest of safety, I am asking you to consider a change to the Statute (Title 12, ss 11212, 1B) that would permit Open Carriers without a permit to keep their ammunition loaded in their firearms to reduce unnecessary handling and allow Open Carriers to keep their sidearms in their holsters as long as they are in plain view. I actually have a plain view holster installed in my vehicle for that very purpose.

    A provision to require notification of the presence of a firearm to Law Enforcement Officers in an encounter, like a traffic stop, would be agreeable as well.

    Thank you for your time,
    I know this may be a small thing, but I figure if the PTB can take away our freedoms one salami slice at a time, why can't we take them back the same way?
    Last edited by Maine Expat; 08-16-2012 at 10:50 AM. Reason: Fixed title
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Sigh. Why add the part about a notification requirement? That just puts a further burden on law abiding people because a criminal intent on harming the police will still not abide by that requirement.

    Appeal to the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is not to prevent self defense, or to protect Law Enforcement. The purpose of the law is to prevent hunting from a vehicle.

    Since Part 1A already prevents shooting from a vehicle, the loaded gun provision in part 1B are unnecessary. Simply remove part 1B and be done with it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The OP in the Ukraine?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    Sigh. Why add the part about a notification requirement? That just puts a further burden on law abiding people because a criminal intent on harming the police will still not abide by that requirement..
    Agreed. A law that forces someone to waive their "right to remain silent" is bad for liberty.


    There is also this >> http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7904. Watch the video, read the excerpt from "Failure to Inform: CHL-holders taking a big risk on Ohio roadways" and decide if a law like Ohio's would be good for Maine.


    From the article:
    Since this seems not to be getting through to everyone in their training classes, it bears repeating: IF YOU ARE A CHL-HOLDER AND ARE CARRYING A CONCEALED HANDGUN IN OHIO, YOU MUST INFORM LAW ENFORCEMENT IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE.

    Still not convinced that this is important? Then consider that failure to promptly inform a law enforcement officer can result in being charged with a first degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1000 fine! As if that weren't bad enough, probation (and the resulting loss of privileges and freedoms) may be tacked on to the jail term. No matter what type of punishment the judge settles on, a conviction WILL result in the suspension of the concealed handgun license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.

    ...THESE REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO YOU IF YOU ARE AN OCCUPANT IN A MOTOR VEHICLE ON AN OHIO ROADWAY - NOT JUST TO YOU WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING.

    Do I have your attention yet?

    Ohio's firearms laws contain far too many places where a gun owner who is doing their best to follow the law can be trapped on a technicality. The "failure to inform" statute is no different.

    For instance, not even most instructors (and thus their students) are aware that the duty to inform applies to each police officer who approaches a CHL-holder during a stop. If you are stopped by a partner cruiser, Officer A does the initial approach, the CHL-holder must inform them. If Officer B subsequently approaches, you are required to notify Officer B, and C, D, E and F if more arrive on the scene.

    The rest of what the OP said in the letter is spot-on though.
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  5. #5
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    Thanks for the feedback guys.

    This is just in the infancy stage as no one actually had considered this before according to my district Rep. I'm sure there will be plenty of time and opportunity to get the exact wording right as this moves along, IF it moves along.

    I felt the important thing was to get some attention on it first and hammer out some details as we ALL write our State Reps to get this ball rolling.

    I know many will disagree, but I just feel its responsible to inform a LEO that I'm armed to prevent any potentially tragic outcomes. CCers have to inform in most States so why not OCers too? This is one area where we can easily compromise without giving up very much if anything.

    And how is informing a LEO that you're legally and properly armed incriminating yourself, which is what the 5th A is concerned with.

    Again guys, I'm an Oath Keeper first and that mission (RTI) requires open communication. I won't slam that door, by going legalistic on them, if there's a chance to get a positive conversation going to further my OK RTI mission.
    Last edited by Maine Expat; 07-31-2012 at 10:24 AM.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  6. #6
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193
    I don't think a requirement to inform should be law. It will ensnare legal gun owners trying to obey the law in extra hassle if they get nervous or just plain forget. I say we got some pretty good laws here in Maine. Its no constitutional carry and the unloaded in the car w/o a permit requirement sucks, but a CC permit here is really easy to get. I got mine for $90 that's the handgun safety class and application fee. A duty to inform won't help us. It will just lock up a law abiding citizen when the cop shines the light in their eyes and they get nervous. Any traffic stop can be intimidating to someone who doesn't have any prior experience with police no matter how nice or polite the cop is.

    If you feel that informing an officer that you are armed will help keep you safer then go right ahead. I can see where in certain situations that might keep you safer, but a duty to inform helps no one.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freiheit417's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine Expat View Post
    CCers have to inform in most States so why not OCers too? This is one area where we can easily compromise without giving up very much if anything.

    And how is informing a LEO that you're legally and properly armed incriminating yourself, which is what the 5th A is concerned with.
    Most states in fact, do not have a duty to inform>> http://smith-wessonforum.com/attachm...p;d=1311093292 I'm not sure this map is 100% up-to-date, but you get the idea. Eight or nine states out of 50 is not most.

    If you choose to speak to an officer, that is your choice. I'm sure there are many people in jail who thought they were doing nothing wrong and "had nothing to hide" when they opened their mouth. My feeling is that the "duty to inform" law is a gotcha law. The definition of "immediately" is subjective. Is it 2 seconds or 30 seconds or one minute, two minutes? Would you want to risk your freedom if an officer decides that you informed 2 seconds too late? Furthermore, suppose you inform in compliance with the law and you are in some arbitrary "gun-free" zone such as being within xx number of feet from yyy. Now, you've just incriminated yourself unknowingly.

    I simply feel that none of our Constitutional Rights should be given up by compromise - just my respectful disagreement. I always err on the side of liberty when in doubt
    America, where freedom* reigns.

    *Freedom subject to change depending on jurisdiction and availability. Some freedoms may not be available due to local political expedience or prevailing political correctness. Please check Federal, State, County, City, or any other special district for applicable laws governing the extents of freedoms prior to purchase.

    -----------

    “What you see is the fringe of the fringe showing up in Hartford today." - Danny Malloy a.k.a. "The Governor" 3/11/2013

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Freiheit417 View Post
    Most states in fact, do not have a duty to inform>> http://smith-wessonforum.com/attachm...p;d=1311093292 I'm not sure this map is 100% up-to-date, but you get the idea. Eight or nine states out of 50 is not most.

    If you choose to speak to an officer, that is your choice. I'm sure there are many people in jail who thought they were doing nothing wrong and "had nothing to hide" when they opened their mouth. My feeling is that the "duty to inform" law is a gotcha law. The definition of "immediately" is subjective. Is it 2 seconds or 30 seconds or one minute, two minutes? Would you want to risk your freedom if an officer decides that you informed 2 seconds too late? Furthermore, suppose you inform in compliance with the law and you are in some arbitrary "gun-free" zone such as being within xx number of feet from yyy. Now, you've just incriminated yourself unknowingly.

    I simply feel that none of our Constitutional Rights should be given up by compromise - just my respectful disagreement. I always err on the side of liberty when in doubt
    The ultimate reality is that notification laws just set people like us up for trouble. The people intent on killing police are not going to notify. Notification laws make an encounter more intense. Do we really want to risk things like this: http://www.ohiofreepress.com/2011/ca...permit-holder/

  9. #9
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Flashlight View Post
    The ultimate reality is that notification laws just set people like us up for trouble. The people intent on killing police are not going to notify. Notification laws make an encounter more intense. Do we really want to risk things like this: http://www.ohiofreepress.com/2011/ca...permit-holder/
    Damn...that is a seriously chilling video. All that hassle, intimidation, and harassment for trying to obey the law and not get shot. Duty to inform=bad news.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  10. #10
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine Expat View Post
    I just feel its responsible to inform a LEO that I'm armed
    If you want to compromise in this way you have that right. But please quit trying to push this on others. There is NO proof that this does anything to help the situation. All you've done is bring the firearm to the cops attention. Now he's going to seize it and run your serial number. Don't try to force this on others.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  11. #11
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    Ok, so I agree we can drop any push for a required notify law. If I choose to do it on my own that's my business.

    Any way, the discussion seems to have died down and I'd like to make a concerted effort with our Maine Legislators to get the ball rolling on eliminating the requirement for a permit to OC a loaded handgun in a vehicle.

    What are the proposals for the wording on this?

    -Change Para 1B How?

    B. A person may not, while in or on a motor vehicle or in or on a trailer or other type of vehicle being hauled by a motor vehicle, have a cocked and armed crossbow or a firearm with a cartridge or shell in the chamber or in an attached magazine, clip or cylinder or a muzzle-loading firearm charged with powder, lead and a primed ignition device or mechanism, except that a person who has a valid Maine permit to carry a concealed weapon may have in or on a motor vehicle or trailer a loaded pistol or revolver covered by that permit. [2005, c. 477, §9 (AMD).]
    Delete the CCP part so it reads...

    B. A person may not, while in or on a motor vehicle or in or on a trailer or other type of vehicle being hauled by a motor vehicle, have a cocked and armed crossbow or **a hunting firearm with a cartridge or shell in the chamber or in an attached magazine, clip or cylinder or a muzzle-loading firearm charged with powder, lead and a primed ignition device or mechanism, except that a person may have in or on a motor vehicle or trailer a loaded **self defense handgun. [2005, c. 477, §9 (AMD).]

    **Red bold added.

    Just my thoughts on it, what do ya'll think? I do think we need to get Maine to distinguish between hunting and SD firearms and get the SD, OC carry law away from the hunting regs.
    Last edited by Maine Expat; 08-11-2012 at 03:23 PM.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  12. #12
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    "Oh, that .357 Magnum isn't a "self defense handgun" and neither is that .44 Magnum. Hey, look here, he's got a handgun in xx caliber, didn't Ol' Charley take a deer with one last autumn? He's tryin' to hunt, that's what he's doin'."
    - I think specifying "self defense handgun" is likely a needless complication, "A person with a valid firearms license issued by Maine, or any state Maine recognizes, is exempt from this paragraph" would be better. More freedom, less government involvement, and it would still be every bit as illegal to hunt from a vehicle.

    Is poaching from a vehicle that much of a problem that anything with even the very vaguest of appearances has to be made illegal?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-11-2012 at 04:02 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    "Oh, that .357 Magnum isn't a "self defense handgun" and neither is that .44 Magnum. Hey, look here, he's got a handgun in xx caliber, didn't Ol' Charley take a deer with one last autumn? He's tryin' to hunt, that's what he's doin'."
    - I think specifying "self defense handgun" is likely a needless complication, "A person with a valid firearms license issued by Maine, or any state Maine recognizes, is exempt from this paragraph" would be better. More freedom, less government involvement, and it would still be every bit as illegal to hunt from a vehicle.

    Is poaching from a vehicle that much of a problem that anything with even the very vaguest of appearances has to be made illegal?
    Maine doesn't require any firearm licence. A permit is required to conceal carry or to carry loaded in a vehicle but that's it.

    I say keep the restriction the same and just exempt handguns, or get your CWP. I got mine for $95 (safety class and application fee).

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine Expat View Post
    I know many will disagree, but I just feel its responsible to inform a LEO that I'm armed to prevent any potentially tragic outcomes. CCers have to inform in most States so why not OCers too? This is one area where we can easily compromise without giving up very much if anything.
    This cop on this video was an a**hole to be sure .. but I have seen crazier ... much crazier. I've had them point guns at my head for a 5-10 mph speeding charge(s) on several occasions. This cop never pulled his gun that I saw.

    His talk about shooting him 10 times? What a load of crap .. just talk, but it makes him look like he is crazy lol.

    Yelling, barking orders ... its a joke of course...but that's what cops do and are allowed to do. You should just remain silent. Hand him your license & reg. His language used should be grounds to terminate him.

    The cop did commit 1 crime though that I could see.. threatened "to put lumps on you" appears to be a real threat, and an assault charge would be appropriate. Cops can say many things but if not in custody they clearly cannot threaten you with bashing your head in.

    An undisciplined cop. There are 100 people waiting in line for his job ... I suggest letting one of them replace him.

    Maine likes to inform as a matter of courtesy .... I like not to inform as a matter of my freedom. Any law that says you must inform is clearly unconstitutional.

    Compromise? Nah, I'll pass on that.

    16, now 17 complaints on this cop and he is still a cop .. lalalala .. unions suck.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by CCinMaine View Post
    Maine doesn't require any firearm licence. A permit is required to conceal carry or to carry loaded in a vehicle but that's it.

    I say keep the restriction the same and just exempt handguns, or get your CWP. I got mine for $95 (safety class and application fee).

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
    My apologies CCinMaine, I wasn't familiar with the exact terminology used by Maine in reference to it's license for those carrying a firearm. If you would read what I said and substitute the appropriate phraseology for Maine, I hope it will become clearer.

    Is there really that much of a difference between a license and a permit? Does a state that issues a driving permit differ substantially from one that issues an operator's license, or a drivers license? In none of the cases above is a license required to possess an automobile, only to operate one upon public roadways.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 08-12-2012 at 01:04 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member CCinMaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Windham, Maine
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    My apologies CCinMaine, I wasn't familiar with the exact terminology used by Maine in reference to it's license for those carrying a firearm. If you would read what I said and substitute the appropriate phraseology for Maine, I hope it will become clearer.

    Is there really that much of a difference between a license and a permit? Does a state that issues a driving permit differ substantially from one that issues an operator's license, or a drivers license? In none of the cases above is a license required to possess an automobile, only to operate one upon public roadways.
    I wasn't being critical. The way your post read it seemed to me like you were referring to a licence like the FOID card Illinois has(or whatever its called). Wasn't being a dick. Just trying to inform. Maybe I read it wrong. Sorry if you thought it was an attack or that I was trying to be a smart a**.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    "Oh, that .357 Magnum isn't a "self defense handgun" and neither is that .44 Magnum. Hey, look here, he's got a handgun in xx caliber, didn't Ol' Charley take a deer with one last autumn? He's tryin' to hunt, that's what he's doin'."
    - I think specifying "self defense handgun" is likely a needless complication, "A person with a valid firearms license issued by Maine, or any state Maine recognizes, is exempt from this paragraph" would be better. More freedom, less government involvement, and it would still be every bit as illegal to hunt from a vehicle.

    Is poaching from a vehicle that much of a problem that anything with even the very vaguest of appearances has to be made illegal?
    That is the current state of the law. A person with a CCW is exempt from the law about loaded handguns in vehicles. We want that to be changed to allow loaded handguns in vehicles. There's already a section in the same law that makes hunting from a vehicle illegal, why complicate it farther by not being allowed to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle? (rhetorical question) The problem that is arising in Maine due to this current law is that you're not required to have any permit to open carry loaded outside the vehicle, but once you get in the vehicle an open carrier must unload their firearm. What this leads to is someone who wants to carry a pistol for defense that does not yet have their permit has to drive to the gas station with an unloaded gun. Park in the parking lot, get out of their vehicle, load their gun in plain sight, and holster and walk into the store. This makes for a very awkward situation that could cause public alarm when someone sees someone loading up a gun outside a convenience store.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    Thanks boyscout, that's where I'm trying to go with this.

    Just exempt handguns so OCers can leave it loaded. I was also thinking about the potential safety issue from frequent loading/unloading and Murphy catching up.

    I do agree that getting the CCP is the better way to go, but that takes upwards of 90 days (or more) here in Vacationland.

    What I would like to see is some suggestions on the wording of the quoted paragraph. Lets get this put together and start working on our State Legislators.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  19. #19
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    My apologies CCinMaine, I wasn't familiar with the exact terminology used by Maine in reference to it's license for those carrying a firearm. If you would read what I said and substitute the appropriate phraseology for Maine, I hope it will become clearer.

    Is there really that much of a difference between a license and a permit? Does a state that issues a driving permit differ substantially from one that issues an operator's license, or a drivers license? In none of the cases above is a license required to possess an automobile, only to operate one upon public roadways.
    Tomato vs tomahto prolly. But we're trying to rewrite a law on the books to get it changed to make it possible to keep a loaded handgun in the vehicle as an OCer. This is just one of those "salami slices" we could take back if we work together on it. Maine is pretty free for gun owners (some areas are better than others) so why not try to lead the charge and take back some ground and make it easier for other States to maybe get more 2A friendly?

    Oh and I DID quote the paragraph that needs changed as well. Did all that bold red stuff throw you off?
    Last edited by Maine Expat; 08-12-2012 at 07:35 AM.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  20. #20
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    Here's the Reg from Title12 Sec. 11212 Para 1

    B. A person may not, while in or on a motor vehicle or in or on a trailer or other type of vehicle being hauled by a motor vehicle, have a cocked and armed crossbow or a firearm with a cartridge or shell in the chamber or in an attached magazine, clip or cylinder or a muzzle-loading firearm charged with powder, lead and a primed ignition device or mechanism, except that a person who has a valid Maine permit to carry a concealed weapon may have in or on a motor vehicle or trailer a loaded pistol or revolver covered by that permit. [2005, c. 477, §9 (AMD).]
    Maybe drop the CCP line so it reads;

    B. A person may not, while in or on a motor vehicle or in or on a trailer or other type of vehicle being hauled by a motor vehicle, have a cocked and armed crossbow or a firearm with a cartridge or shell in the chamber or in an attached magazine, clip or cylinder or a muzzle-loading firearm charged with powder, lead and a primed ignition device or mechanism, except that a person may have in or on a motor vehicle or trailer a loaded pistol or revolver. [2005, c. 477, §9 (AMD).]
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  21. #21
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    .... except that this paragraph shall not apply to a person who has a valid Maine permit to carry a concealed weapon (or other permit recognized by the state of Maine)[2005, c. 477, §9 (AMD).]

    Wouldn't that fix it?
    Rifles, pistols, revolvers, crossbows, black powder all covered, ... hunting from a vehicle still illegal, and no one has to do the 'get out and load' dance in public.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    No it wouldn't Falls.

    We're trying to rewrite/change a law on the books to make it possible to keep a loaded handgun in the vehicle as an OCer, WITHOUT a CCP.
    Last edited by Maine Expat; 08-12-2012 at 09:58 AM.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    .... except that this paragraph shall not apply to a person who has a valid Maine permit to carry a concealed weapon (or other permit recognized by the state of Maine)[2005, c. 477, §9 (AMD).]

    Wouldn't that fix it?
    Rifles, pistols, revolvers, crossbows, black powder all covered, ... hunting from a vehicle still illegal, and no one has to do the 'get out and load' dance in public.
    That is how the law currently reads. This does not help the people who open carry without a CCW. Maine allows open carry without a CCW except someone that wants to use this right has to do the "get out and load" dance because they can't have it loaded in their vehicle because they do not have a CCW permit.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Another little known fact about this statute... There is no exemption in this statute for a law enforcement officer. The permit exemption only allows for a loaded pistol or revolver. The shotguns or AR15s found in most police vehicles are not legal under Maine law because they often have a loaded magazine tube with empty chamber.
    Last edited by boyscout399; 08-12-2012 at 10:48 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine Expat View Post
    Here's the Reg from Title12 Sec. 11212 Para 1



    Maybe drop the CCP line so it reads;

    B. A person may not, while in or on a motor vehicle or in or on a trailer or other type of vehicle being hauled by a motor vehicle, have a cocked and armed crossbow or a firearm with a cartridge or shell in the chamber or in an attached magazine, clip or cylinder or a muzzle-loading firearm charged with powder, lead and a primed ignition device or mechanism, except that a person may have in or on a motor vehicle or trailer a loaded pistol or revolver. [2005, c. 477, §9 (AMD).]
    So, its been quiet for the past couple of days. What say ye MAINERS? Does the amended version immediately above that deletes the CCP requirement fit the bill?

    -Should we include any language (or suggestion to legislators) about properly holstered/in plain view w/o a CCP, etc?
    -Add "with or without a Concealed Carry permit" to the end?
    -Submit it as is?

    Lets have some suggestions on wording please and start putting some pressure on our elected officials in a coordinated effort to show them we mean business.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

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
  •