Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Concealed carry has prevailed in Portland committee

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463

    Concealed carry has prevailed in Portland committee

    After 42 hours of deliberation.
    Developing...
    Last edited by Maine CWP Training; 09-30-2010 at 01:01 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    What? Further explanation please?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    See attached
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PORTLAND1.jpg 
Views:	129 
Size:	96.2 KB 
ID:	4139   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PORTLAND 2.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	95.5 KB 
ID:	4140  

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    I don't see how that memo has advanced our cause at all. He still wants to prohibit firearms by legal owners in public buildings. That is clearly a violation of the Constitution of Maine.

    I love how they justify the constitutionality of things like school zone carry with "reasonable time place and manner restrictions." Yes, they have said that there were exceptions for certain sensitive places, but the Supreme Court has NOT hashed out what constitutes a "sensitive place" and the laws regarding so called "sensitive places" have not been challenged, which is the only reason they still stand. That doesn't make them automatically constitutional, it just means no one has argued the point yet.

    To me, if a place wants to be labeled a "no gun sensitive place" they should be required to have means in place to prevent the firearm from entering (ie. airport security checkpoint) If they have no means and capability of preventing the illegally carried firearm, then they have no constitutional authority to prevent the legally carried one. If you want to prevent firearms in schools, you must put up metal detectors at EVERY entrance! A law against something does not stop an action.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Freeport, Maine, United States
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine CWP Training View Post
    After 42 hours of deliberation.
    Developing...
    This is not good enough. Exempting CCW is NOT good enough. They will NOT enact any legislation against ANY carry method. That's why MOCA was formed and we will fight this every step of the way.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Tinker AFB, ,
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by shanebelanger View Post
    This is not good enough. Exempting CCW is NOT good enough. They will NOT enact any legislation against ANY carry method. That's why MOCA was formed and we will fight this every step of the way.
    Good. Keep up the pressure.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    This is not good enough. Exempting CCW is NOT good enough. They will NOT enact any legislation against ANY carry method. That's why MOCA was formed and we will fight this every step of the way.
    One on one was very effective.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    wow - they left MOCA off the distribution list!!!

    What the heck is going on???

    Clearly this committee is mainly just opposed to constitutional carry, i.e., carry without a license.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14
    If the proposed language were to be adopted by the City Council, would it lead anyone to take a step back and reevaluate strategies?

    I'm thinking that this proposal will be a big wedge in the firearms rights community. I don't think anyone can deny that the hearings and this proposal are a direct result of the Back Cove event. There are a lot of gun owners who are going to say that the public's perception of it as an "in your face" type situation just kicked a hornets nest. If the proposal passes, I'm guessing that the perception is going to be that open carry resulted in their rights being restricted, and gave the antis another victory.

    Is there anything constructive to be learned? What should the open carry community be communicating to the rest of the gun culture to avoid giving the antis this wedge?

  10. #10
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_JMB View Post
    If the proposed language were to be adopted by the City Council, would it lead anyone to take a step back and reevaluate strategies?

    I'm thinking that this proposal will be a big wedge in the firearms rights community. I don't think anyone can deny that the hearings and this proposal are a direct result of the Back Cove event. There are a lot of gun owners who are going to say that the public's perception of it as an "in your face" type situation just kicked a hornets nest. If the proposal passes, I'm guessing that the perception is going to be that open carry resulted in their rights being restricted, and gave the antis another victory.

    Is there anything constructive to be learned? What should the open carry community be communicating to the rest of the gun culture to avoid giving the antis this wedge?
    My perception is as follows:

    Skolnik (it's always Skolnik) has decided to attack open carry. He did this initially with his measure to prohibit all forms of carry in designated public spaces. His committee now attempts to placate the 2A-rights community in general by proposing a half-measure which tries to look "reasonable" by explicitly stating that CFP (Maine terminology for CWP) holders will not be affected.

    However, the fact remains that 2A rights will be infringed. By creating an exemption for people who have paid for private training and additionally paid a state tax on a civil right they will likely garner support. Other than vocal and highly visible opposition in City Hall I am not sure at this juncture what other measures we can take, aside from deliberately orchestrating a test case (which I know to be roundly illegal... the supreme court will not hear "test cases" fitting that criterion).

    I'm open to suggestions but to call this a victory is a joke. MOCA will not be satisfied with anything less than full constitutional carry in Maine, as our state constitution establishes.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Augusta, Maine, USA
    Posts
    34
    It seems like the City Council knows how to split our base between the ones who will stand and the ones who will lay down.
    If seeing someone openly carrying a gun makes you nervous there is a good chance it is because it forces you to realize that you have chosen to be helpless.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Portland, Maine-Bar Harlem, Maine
    Posts
    64

    anyone read op?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarody View Post
    It seems like the City Council knows how to split our base between the ones who will stand and the ones who will lay down.
    ...or the NRA threw you under the bus.
    I think you are giving the council way too much credit.


    from OP
    "After 42 hours of deliberation.
    Developing... "

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Harrison
    Posts
    463
    Shane
    I'm open to suggestions but to call this a victory is a joke.
    Nobody is joking here. In all my conversations I kept open carry on the table. Prevailing on concealed carry adds prevailing arguments for open carry.

    doorbell ~ Do you have any evidence the NRA threw MOCA "under the bus"? Myself and attorneys from the NRA have been working this from day one and continue to do so at no expense to you.

    Divisive rancor will get MOCA nowhere.
    Goodby

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by ep0k View Post
    ... the fact remains that 2A rights will be infringed. ... to call this a victory is a joke.
    The two statements I quoted contradict one another. The antis have a long history of losing in Maine. Any new restrictions where there previously were none are a huge victory for them. Especially in a national atmosphere where residents in other states are getting rights back.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Tinker AFB, ,
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_JMB View Post
    The two statements I quoted contradict one another. The antis have a long history of losing in Maine. Any new restrictions where there previously were none are a huge victory for them. Especially in a national atmosphere where residents in other states are getting rights back.
    He was referring to it being called a victory for 2A rights as a joke

  16. #16
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by hightecrebel View Post
    He was referring to it being called a victory for 2A rights as a joke
    Exactly. As I said before anything less than this measure simply going away is a new infringement where none existed before. That is a FAILURE for our side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maine CWP Training View Post
    Shane (quote) Nobody is joking here. In all my conversations I kept open carry on the table. Prevailing on concealed carry adds prevailing arguments for open carry.

    doorbell ~ Do you have any evidence the NRA threw MOCA "under the bus"? Myself and attorneys from the NRA have been working this from day one and continue to do so at no expense to you.

    Divisive rancor will get MOCA nowhere.
    Goodby
    I'm Forrest. It's in my signature. Shane's the other one.

    Divisive rancor? This has changed from an attack on gun rights in general to an attack specifically on OC, which has always been Skolnik's agenda. You said that OC was in all your talks with city hall, but I only see CC being preserved in the new wording.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_JMB View Post
    If the proposed language were to be adopted by the City Council, would it lead anyone to take a step back and reevaluate strategies?

    I'm thinking that this proposal will be a big wedge in the firearms rights community. I don't think anyone can deny that the hearings and this proposal are a direct result of the Back Cove event. There are a lot of gun owners who are going to say that the public's perception of it as an "in your face" type situation just kicked a hornets nest. If the proposal passes, I'm guessing that the perception is going to be that open carry resulted in their rights being restricted, and gave the antis another victory.

    Is there anything constructive to be learned? What should the open carry community be communicating to the rest of the gun culture to avoid giving the antis this wedge?
    It doesn't matter if our events DID stir up a hornets nest, because before our events, you couldn't OC in Portland anyway without getting harassed and arrested by the police. (It happened to me on multiple occasions). So even if they DO ban OC now (which they can't and won't get the support for in the state legislature anyway) then at least we had the right uninfringed for a year which is more than we would have had if we hadn't had our events.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by ep0k View Post
    Exactly. As I said before anything less than this measure simply going away is a new infringement where none existed before. That is a FAILURE for our side.



    I'm Forrest. It's in my signature. Shane's the other one.

    Divisive rancor? This has changed from an attack on gun rights in general to an attack specifically on OC, which has always been Skolnik's agenda. You said that OC was in all your talks with city hall, but I only see CC being preserved in the new wording.
    Don't kid yourself. OC is not Skolnik's only agenda. He's just taking baby steps. If he wins the regulation of OC today, tomorrow he'll make the argument that "we have the right to regulate firearms granted by the state, yet we can't regulate the most dangerous type of firearms, CC firearms, so we should force the state to allow us to regulate these most dangerous of firearms which is the way criminals prefer to carry their firearms."

    I don't think he has a chance of winning this fight, and we will show up in force again to oppose it. I also don't think anything we say is going to deter him from making this meaningless "resolution" to the state. The more that show up in opposition will just further show his disregard and derelict of his own job of representing his constituents who so vehemently oppose this regulation, and his job of and upholding the constitution which he disregards as an antiquated document that doesn't hold weight in todays society.

  19. #19
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    Don't kid yourself. OC is not Skolnik's only agenda. He's just taking baby steps. If he wins the regulation of OC today, tomorrow he'll make the argument that "we have the right to regulate firearms granted by the state, yet we can't regulate the most dangerous type of firearms, CC firearms, so we should force the state to allow us to regulate these most dangerous of firearms which is the way criminals prefer to carry their firearms."

    I don't think he has a chance of winning this fight, and we will show up in force again to oppose it. I also don't think anything we say is going to deter him from making this meaningless "resolution" to the state. The more that show up in opposition will just further show his disregard and derelict of his own job of representing his constituents who so vehemently oppose this regulation, and his job of and upholding the constitution which he disregards as an antiquated document that doesn't hold weight in todays society.
    I'm generally in agreement with you, he is anti-gun, period, but at the moment he's narrowed his attack into our territory. Thats why we need to be very vocal in opposing this measure.

    I'm glad that a concession was made. I really am. But its simply not enough and you're absolutely correct that it is only the first in a sequence of moves. If we lose 5% o the ground at a time, we'll have nothing left before you know it. We need to be working on getting existing laws off the books, too, not just fighting these measures.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  20. #20
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    NRA makes $ from CC, but not OC. Why would the NRA support OC?

    Quote Originally Posted by doorbell View Post
    ...or the NRA threw you under the bus.
    I think you are giving the council way too much credit.


    from OP
    "After 42 hours of deliberation.
    Developing... "
    The NRA is not very open carry friendly.

    The gain huge profits from C2I2 (Concealed Carry Instruction Industry). In most states the instructors are REQUIRED to be NRA Instructors!

    There is a significant rift forming in the Keep and Bear Arms crowd between those that accept arbitrary government intervention and those that do not.

    The solution is constitutional carry.


    The individual right to Keep and Bear Arms has been clearly established. We must move on to the next big thing.As gun owners, our next big goal must be: Bear Arms = Constitutional Carry. Anything less it tyranny and defeat.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  21. #21
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    The NRA is not very open carry friendly.

    The gain huge profits from C2I2 (Concealed Carry Instruction Industry). In most states the instructors are REQUIRED to be NRA Instructors!

    There is a significant rift forming in the Keep and Bear Arms crowd between those that accept arbitrary government intervention and those that do not.

    The solution is constitutional carry.


    The individual right to Keep and Bear Arms has been clearly established. We must move on to the next big thing.As gun owners, our next big goal must be: Bear Arms = Constitutional Carry. Anything less it tyranny and defeat.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    I concur wholeheartedly. The NRA is the 800-pound gorilla on the block. While we do share many of the same objectives, non-licensed carry can't be readily turned into a revenue stream. Conversely, a measure which requires a CFP in order to legally carry in designated public areas creates a new demand for training.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by ep0k View Post
    I concur wholeheartedly. The NRA is the 800-pound gorilla on the block. While we do share many of the same objectives, non-licensed carry can't be readily turned into a revenue stream. Conversely, a measure which requires a CFP in order to legally carry in designated public areas creates a new demand for training.
    While I agree on some points, I still think that overall the NRA has supported our objectives and I don't think they are working against us in any way.

  23. #23
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    While I agree on some points, I still think that overall the NRA has supported our objectives and I don't think they are working against us in any way.
    I think what it boils down to is that in the larger spectrum of gun rights as a whole, we share a number of objectives. Easy access to firearms for law-abiding citizens is something we can agree on, for example. I don't view the NRA as an enemy, but we are sometimes in a situation where we work at cross-purposes.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

  24. #24
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by ep0k View Post
    I think what it boils down to is that in the larger spectrum of gun rights as a whole, we share a number of objectives. Easy access to firearms for law-abiding citizens is something we can agree on, for example. I don't view the NRA as an enemy, but we are sometimes in a situation where we work at cross-purposes.
    What I have seen in our ineractions in Virginia:

    Cross-purposes = VCDL works to improve gun rights, NRA works to improve Virginia NRA funding stream.

    FYI VCDL stands for Virginia Citizens Defence League a grass roots gun rights group in Virginia.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  25. #25
    Regular Member ep0k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Wiscasset, Maine, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    What I have seen in our ineractions in Virginia:

    Cross-purposes = VCDL works to improve gun rights, NRA works to improve Virginia NRA funding stream.

    FYI VCDL stands for Virginia Citizens Defence League a grass roots gun rights group in Virginia.
    I find nothing surprising about that.
    v/r
    Forrest Brown
    Webmaster, Maine Open Carry Association
    forrest@maineopencarry.org

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
  •