Maine CWP Training
Regular Member
After 42 hours of deliberation.
Developing...
Developing...
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Concealed carry has prevailed in Portland committee
- Thread starter Maine CWP Training
- Start date
boyscout399
Regular Member
What? Further explanation please?
Maine CWP Training
Regular Member
boyscout399
Regular Member
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.
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.
shanebelanger
Accomplished Advocate
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.
hightecrebel
Regular Member
Good. Keep up the pressure.
Maine CWP Training
Regular Member
One on one was very effective.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
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.
What the heck is going on???
Clearly this committee is mainly just opposed to constitutional carry, i.e., carry without a license.
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?
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?
ep0k
Regular Member
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.
Jarody
Regular Member
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.
doorbell
Regular Member
anyone read op?
...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... "
...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... "
Maine CWP Training
Regular Member
Shane
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
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
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.
hightecrebel
Regular Member
He was referring to it being called a victory for 2A rights as a joke
ep0k
Regular Member
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.
boyscout399
Regular Member
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.
boyscout399
Regular Member
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.
ep0k
Regular Member
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.
Thundar
Regular Member
NRA makes $ from CC, but not OC. Why would the NRA support OC?
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
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