Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73

Thread: MOCA open carry event at Portland City Hall, Tuesday September 14th, 2010

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Freeport, Maine, United States
    Posts
    667

    MOCA open carry event at Portland City Hall, Tuesday September 14th, 2010

    I will keep everyone updated via this thread: post any and all questions and comments here.

    P.S. There will be a lawyer flying up from Fairfax, Virginia to help us fight this.

    Where: Portland City Hall 389 Congress St. Portland, Maine

    Time: TBA

    On the 14th of September there will be a Portland Public Safety Committee meeting lead by none other than Dan Skolnik. WE MUST SHOW UP TO THIS WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. BUT REMEMBER, WE ARE NOT THERE TO INCITE A PROBLEM, on the contrary. We want to show them that we are typical, normal everyday folks just going about their daily lives. We do NOT want to draw attention to ourselves or be disruptive in ANY way. You can choose to OC or CC or do whatever you would like, I would simply like to have as many people on our side as possible. Don't feel like you need to carry to come to this. Our intention is simply to show them that the populace does not want more firearms laws.

    RE:

    Prohibition on Guns in Public Facilities

    At Councilor Skolnik’s request Chief Craig and I met with him to discuss reasonable
    steps the Maine Legislature could take to expand existing state laws prohibiting guns in certain
    facilities.

    Those prohibitions include court houses, jails, public school grounds and community
    colleges and the Capitol complex in Augusta:

    17-A M.R.S.A. 1058: Guns prohibited in court houses (attached);
    17-A M.R.S.A. 757: Guns prohibited in jails (attached);
    20A M.R.S.A. 6552: Guns prohibited on school grounds (attached);
    State Admin Rules 16-219 Department of Public Safety: Guns prohibited in Capitol complex
    (attached);

    State and federal law pre-empts local authority to regulate the right to bear arms. That is
    why this limited approach to new state legislation makes sense. Portland can call on the
    Legislature to expand its own laws in a way that conforms with the right to bear arms.

    While that right is broad and well protected by law, its exercise can be reasonably
    controlled in carefully defined situations and facilities, as demonstrated by the previously cited
    statutes, as well as a state statute prohibiting guns in bars (which are generally private property;
    see 17-A M.R.S.A. 1057; attached).

    With this goal in mind, the State could prohibit firearms in public facilities; that is,
    facilities owned by a governmental body or agency such as city and town halls, recreational
    facilities, and entertainment facilities or similar facilities owned by quasi-governmental agencies
    and to which the public has access.

    Councilor Skolnik will ask the Public Safety Committee to take this issue up at its
    meeting on September 14th following a public hearing, the Committee will consider whether to
    send a Resolution to the Council. The resolution may be framed in a number of ways, including
    asking MMA to draft and support legislation that prohibit firearms in public facilities.

    Some exceptions to such a prohibition would include, law enforcement personnel or for
    events at which facilities have been leased for gun shows, worthwhile to examine whether someone with a Concealed Weapons Permit should be exempted.

    Chief Craig will support legislation that is focused on public facilities and will ask
    Maine’s police chiefs and sheriffs to support it. His guidance in the discussion to date has been
    to define very specific expansions that do not impact hunters but do add to public safety. For
    instance, in Portland he sees a need for greater public protection at places like City Hall,
    Fitzpatrick Stadium, Merrill Auditorium, and the Expo.

    The Public Safety Committee will work with PPD, the Cumberland County Sheriff’s
    Office, and the Portland-area legislative delegation to determine reasonable steps to propose in
    Augusta.
    Last edited by shanebelanger; 09-08-2010 at 06:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member crdonov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    463

    meeting

    time and where.

    xd-over

  3. #3
    Regular Member crdonov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by crdonov View Post
    time and where.

    xd-over
    sorry didnt see your edit. will have to let you know about sept 14th. was just informed that my wife has therapy, so i may be on kid duty. ill let you know.

    xd-over

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Freeport, Maine, United States
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by crdonov View Post
    sorry didnt see your edit. will have to let you know about sept 14th. was just informed that my wife has therapy, so i may be on kid duty. ill let you know.

    xd-over
    so bring him

  5. #5
    Regular Member crdonov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by shanebelanger View Post
    so bring him
    ill see what i can do! but he is only 17 months old, id be pretty ammbarrased if he started to put up a fit in the middle of the meeting. tell you what, ill try to get a baby sitter. ill let you know maybe tommorrow.

    xd-over

  6. #6
    Regular Member crdonov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    463
    hows the lawyer flying up to attend the meeting?

    xd-over

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    I'll be there for sure!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Why the need for more legislation? Public facilities belong to we the people.
    Would be more infringement on rights, doing nothing for public safety.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas, , USA
    Posts
    80
    I'll be in town Friday, the 17th; maybe you could get this reset to 3:00p Friday so I can come? (j/k)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    68
    Assuming that I can get out of work in time I will be there.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    Portland Public Safety Committee
    September 14, 2010 Hearing
    To whom it may concern.

    I urge you to abandon any notion with respect to the City of Portland regulating firearms.

    Previously I cited the state preemption:

    Title 25: INTERNAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
    Part 5: PUBLIC SAFETY
    Chapter 252-A: FIREARMS REGULATION HEADING: PL 1989, C. 359 (NEW)
    2011. State preemption
    1. Preemption. The State intends to occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation concerning the regulation of firearms, components, ammunition and supplies. Except as provided in subsection 3, any existing or future order, ordinance, rule or regulation in this field of any political subdivision of the State is void.
    [ 1989, c. 359, (NEW) .]
    2. Regulation restricted. Except as provided in subsection 3, no political subdivision of the State, including, but not limited to, municipalities, counties, townships and village corporations, may adopt any order, ordinance, rule or regulation concerning the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration, taxation or any other matter pertaining to firearms, components, ammunition or supplies.

    Contemplated municipal firearm regulations would prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves or innocent others in direct conflict with state statutes hereinafter cited for your consumption.

    Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
    Chapter 5: DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; JUSTIFICATION
    101. General rules for defenses and affirmative defenses; justification
    1. The State is not required to negate any facts expressly designated as a "defense," or any exception, exclusion or authorization that is set out in the statute defining the crime by proof at trial, unless the existence of the defense, exception, exclusion or authorization is in issue as a result of evidence admitted at the trial that is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the issue, in which case the State must disprove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt. This subsection does not require a trial judge to instruct on an issue that has been waived by the defendant. The subject of waiver is addressed by the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    [ 1997, c. 185, 1 (AMD) .]
    2. Where the statute explicitly designates a matter as an "affirmative defense," the matter so designated must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.
    [ 1981, c. 324, 24 (RPR) .]
    3. Conduct that is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to any crime; except that, if a person is justified in using force against another, but the person recklessly injures or creates a risk of injury to 3rd persons, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness. If a defense provided under this chapter is precluded solely because the requirement that the person's belief be reasonable has not been met, the person may be convicted only of a crime for which recklessness or criminal negligence suffices.

    Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
    Part 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
    Chapter 5: DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES; JUSTIFICATION
    108. Physical force in defense of a person
    1. A person is justified in using a reasonable degree of nondeadly force upon another person in order to defend the person or a 3rd person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, nondeadly force by such other person, and the person may use a degree of such force that the person reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
    A. With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, the person provoked the use of unlawful, nondeadly force by such other person; or [2007, c. 173, 24 (AMD).]
    B. The person was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person the intent to do so, but the other person notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, nondeadly force; or [2007, c. 173, 24 (AMD).]
    C. The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law. [1975, c. 499, 1 (NEW).]
    [ 2007, c. 173, 24 (AMD) .]
    1-A. A person is not justified in using nondeadly force against another person who that person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest or detention, regardless of whether the arrest or detention is legal. A person is justified in using the degree of nondeadly force the person reasonably believes is necessary to defend the person or a 3rd person against a law enforcement officer who, in effecting an arrest or detention, uses nondeadly force not justified under section 107, subsection 1.
    [ 1997, c. 351, 1 (NEW) .]
    2. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
    A. When the person reasonably believes it necessary and reasonably believes such other person is:
    (1) About to use unlawful, deadly force against the person or a 3rd person; or
    (2) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping, robbery or a violation of section 253, subsection 1, paragraph A, against the person or a 3rd person; or [1989, c. 878, Pt. B, 15 (AMD).]

    Respectfully,

    Paul J. Mattson
    NRA Certified Instructor / RSO
    #63731855
    Maine CWP Training
    101 Main St.
    Harrison, ME 04040
    (207) 583-4723
    CELL 232-7063

    www.MaineCWPtraining.com

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas, , USA
    Posts
    80

    email addy of committee, or its members?

    Paul, I'm an out of state property owner, and while I can't attend in person I'd like to help by emailing whoever's appropriate w. my opposition. Can you suggest the right email addresses to use?

    thanks,

    RNH

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    No email addresses right now. Many are confidential. Here is the sponsor's response moments ago:

    Thank you Sir for sending along the statutes.

    I encourage you again to recognize the aim here is to act within those guidelines.

    It is possible to act within those guidelines.

    I am well aware of the guidelines.

    I again thank you for sending the guidelines.

    These guidelines are central to our discussion.

    These guidelines do not prove the point I understand you to be making.

    I ask you to participate with us in good faith, not in rancor. That helps no one. Thank you Sir.

    Dan Skolnik
    City Council, District 3
    City of Portland
    389 Congress St.
    Portland, Maine 04101
    207.831.7343

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    I ask you to participate with us in good faith, not in rancor.
    Since when is Constitution and Statute "RANCOR?"

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Freeport, Maine, United States
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine CWP Training View Post
    Since when is Constitution and Statute "RANCOR?"
    It isn't. Mr. Skolnik obviously does not believe in an individual's personal freedom. He does not see the common man fit to defend themselves if the need arises.

    On another note, I don't understand how they can say that they "need more security" at these places, yet want to ban firearms? How does this make sense? Legally carried firearms ARE security.

    The NRA and MOCA will work closely together on this and we will prevail. I find it interesting and quite entertaining that MOCA has been called the premier 2nd Amendment organization in Maine by major news organizations around the state, yet the elected officials refuse to contact MOCA after I have requested them to do so.
    Last edited by shanebelanger; 09-09-2010 at 02:56 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    I again thank you for sending the guidelines.

    Constitution and Statutes are now reduced to, GUIDELINES!

  17. #17
    Regular Member crdonov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    463

    meeting

    any idea on the time of the meeting on sept 14? need to know so i can get a sitter for my son.

    xd-over

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Freeport, Maine, United States
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by crdonov View Post
    any idea on the time of the meeting on sept 14? need to know so i can get a sitter for my son.

    xd-over
    pretty sure it's 5:30 but I'm not positive. Seeing as how they will not talk to me, we will have to wait for word back from Paul on this one.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    CITY OF PORTLAND
    PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
    TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
    5:30 PM
    COUNCIL CHAMBERS PORTLAND CITY HALL

    AGENDA

    1. Approval of Minutes of July 13, 2010 Public Safety Meeting
    2. Support for Legislation in Prohibiting Guns in Certain Public Facilities

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    Skolnik objects to treatment by council
    He believes his colleagues are isolating him, triggering some accusatory e-mails from


    PORTLAND - City Councilor Dan Skolnik is criticizing other councilors for what he describes as a coordinated effort to ignore him and isolate him politically.

    One councilor says Skolnik is having a personal crisis and needs professional help in managing his anger.

    The tension, which has simmered for months, culminated this week in a series of e-mails between Skolnik and two other councilors, copies of which Skolnik provided to the entire City Council and local media outlets.

    READ MORE

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas, , USA
    Posts
    80
    Wow, sounds like a challenging personality. From the excerpt below, sounds like he knows a municipal law would have no standing, and is interesting in pushing for a state law. Can't say that there's likely to be much support for him from the rest of the council.

    "Before he leaves office, Skolnik said, he has a list of goals he wants to accomplish. That includes winning the council's endorsement for state legislation to ban handguns in public buildings, erecting a plaque honoring veterans at the renovated terminal of the Portland International Jetport, and creating a way to put video of council committee meetings on the city website so people can see it live or in archives."

  22. #22
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by rhenriksen View Post
    erecting a plaque honoring veterans at the renovated terminal of the Portland International Jetport
    Yup. Erect a memorial to those who fought to preserve the rights he wants to take away. What a *******.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  23. #23
    Regular Member crdonov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by ep0k View Post
    Yup. Erect a memorial to those who fought to preserve the rights he wants to take away. What a *******.
    right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    xd-over

  24. #24
    Regular Member crdonov's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    south portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine CWP Training View Post
    CITY OF PORTLAND
    PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
    TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
    5:30 PM
    COUNCIL CHAMBERS PORTLAND CITY HALL

    AGENDA

    1. Approval of Minutes of July 13, 2010 Public Safety Meeting
    2. Support for Legislation in Prohibiting Guns in Certain Public Facilities
    well fellas i wont be able to make the meeting on sept 14th. by the time i get out of work, pick up my son at daycare, when i get there it would be 7:00. meeting would probably be over. sorry if a disappointed anyone. would love to be there! was the media contacted? if so let me know so i can catch it on the news.

    xd-over

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Freeport, Maine, United States
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by crdonov View Post
    well fellas i wont be able to make the meeting on sept 14th. by the time i get out of work, pick up my son at daycare, when i get there it would be 7:00. meeting would probably be over. sorry if a disappointed anyone. would love to be there! was the media contacted? if so let me know so i can catch it on the news.

    xd-over
    I personally have not contacted the media.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •