• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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

ep0k

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
273
Location
Wiscasset, Maine, USA
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.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
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.
 

ep0k

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
273
Location
Wiscasset, Maine, USA
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.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

ep0k

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
273
Location
Wiscasset, Maine, USA
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.
 

hightecrebel

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
75
Location
Tinker AFB, ,
Thundar said:
Cross-purposes = VCDL works to improve gun rights, NRA works to improve Virginia NRA funding stream.

Sounds about right. Their lack of support for constitutional carry, and them butting into a case that wasn't theirs, taking time away from someone who recently won a major victory, then making an argument that gives away much of what the original lawyer was after, and then claiming credit for the lawsuit and victory, are just some of the many reasons I let my membership expire. I'd rather send my money to an org that fights for all gun rights, like GOA, SAF, and (soon as the new membership app goes up) MOCA. State level NRA affiliates aren't too bad most places, but the national group just doesn't strike me as the most trustworthy.


Cory
 
Last edited:

Jeff_JMB

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
14
Location
, ,
On the national level the big victories for gun rights have come in the courts. The organizations most responsible for those victories are the Second Amendment Foundation and the Cato Institute. On the legislative front where the NRA concentrates their efforts we’ve been treading water just trying not to lose. But the fact remains that NRA has the name recognition and “pop” to have influence. We need to work from the inside to get them steered in the right direction.

The biggest successes in the gun rights movement are happening at the state level. Those victories are being won by state level organizations like VCDL , AzCDL, and OFF. Look these guys up and look at their lists of accomplishments. These guys are the models for what other state level organizations ought to aspire to be like.

If you look at all the things that they’ve accomplished, they needed to be done through contact with a legislative body of some sort, or a courtroom. The battles aren’t being won by guys marching around the park getting in soccer moms faces with their Hi-Point in a Chinese nylon thigh rig. They’re won by guys wearing jackets and ties who meet with the politicians and lawyers and project an image of maturity, rationality and knowledge of their issue and the workings of the government.
 

ep0k

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
273
Location
Wiscasset, Maine, USA
On the national level the big victories for gun rights have come in the courts. The organizations most responsible for those victories are the Second Amendment Foundation and the Cato Institute. On the legislative front where the NRA concentrates their efforts we’ve been treading water just trying not to lose. But the fact remains that NRA has the name recognition and “pop” to have influence. We need to work from the inside to get them steered in the right direction.

The biggest successes in the gun rights movement are happening at the state level. Those victories are being won by state level organizations like VCDL , AzCDL, and OFF. Look these guys up and look at their lists of accomplishments. These guys are the models for what other state level organizations ought to aspire to be like.

If you look at all the things that they’ve accomplished, they needed to be done through contact with a legislative body of some sort, or a courtroom. The battles aren’t being won by guys marching around the park getting in soccer moms faces with their Hi-Point in a Chinese nylon thigh rig. They’re won by guys wearing jackets and ties who meet with the politicians and lawyers and project an image of maturity, rationality and knowledge of their issue and the workings of the government.

I agree. That being said...

Personally I trend more towards the suit and tie approach. However, we are fighting on two fronts at the moment. One of them is legal. This is principally the suit and tie fight. The other is social. This is the "hi-point in a chinese nylon thigh rig" fight.

OC is a method of engaging the public. We've had some very positive experiences, particularly in Sanford, by OC'ing and letting people ask questions. OC is an excellent way to engage the public, because you can rest assured that questions will be asked. Whether the response is positive or negative, it provides a venue to speak your mind. If you can articulate your position effectively when you're on the spot, it's a very effective way to raise awareness.
 

Maine CWP Training

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
463
Location
Harrison
Paul Mattson, who provides certified gun training for people seeking concealed-weapons permits, said the apparent decision to carve out an exemption for permit holders is a victory for gun rights' advocates, although he would prefer no ban on firearms in public buildings.

"I'd actually feel more comfortable (in a large group) knowing that a lot of people have concealed-weapons permits," he said.

PORTLAND PRESS HERALD
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine

When you say "I'd actually feel more comfortable (in a large group) knowing that a lot of people have concealed-weapons permits," Do you also support and would you feel more comfortable in a room with a bunch of non-permit holding open carriers? This site is about Open Carry, we are pushing constitutional carry. Where do you fall? Are you just pushing CCW or do you also support the current no training open carry allowance?

This is not an attack on you, just asking for a clarification on yours and the NRA's stance. I respect you personally, and I am a member and supporter of the NRA for what it is.
 

ep0k

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
273
Location
Wiscasset, Maine, USA
The article says the turnout was encouraged by the NRA. As I recall it was encouraged by MOCA.

Paul, I never said you threw us under the bus. Someone else said that.

However, you must acknowledge that MOCA is a constitutional-carry organization. You're quoted in the article as saying that you would prefer no ban but you did see the exemption for CFP holders as a victory.

I will grant that it is LESS of a defeat for 2A advocates but it still a net loss for us as long as ANY restriction is put into place which did not exist before.
 

Maine CWP Training

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
463
Location
Harrison
When you say "I'd actually feel more comfortable (in a large group) knowing that a lot of people have concealed-weapons permits," Do you also support and would you feel more comfortable in a room with a bunch of non-permit holding open carriers?
although he would prefer no ban on firearms in public buildings.
I articulated that at each meeting, all eight of them!

The article says the turnout was encouraged by the NRA. As I recall it was encouraged by MOCA. The NRA also promoted to committee members and NRAILA News Blast to Maine, NRA members as most do not have concealed carry permits.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
boyscout I recommend every gun owner to be properly trained and understand the laws. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but do you think that it should be required by law to receive training before open carrying? I think it should be a responsibility, not a requirement.

Again, I hope you understand this is not any sort of attack on you, or on the NRA, and I appreciate all that you've done to help the firearms cause.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
When you say "I'd actually feel more comfortable (in a large group) knowing that a lot of people have concealed-weapons permits," Do you also support and would you feel more comfortable in a room with a bunch of non-permit holding open carriers? I articulated that at each meeting, all eight of them!

The article says the turnout was encouraged by the NRA. As I recall it was encouraged by MOCA. The NRA also promoted to committee members and NRAILA News Blast to Maine, NRA members as most do not have concealed carry permits.

So you would agree that this fight is not yet won? That reassures me. Thank you for that quote. I didn't see it.
 

Maine CWP Training

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
463
Location
Harrison
Yes, but do you think that it should be required by law to receive training before open carrying? I think it should be a responsibility, not a requirement.

Its a law for ATVs, Cars... I seen too many scary things at many ranges with accidental discharges by self taught individuals. Saw one yesterday, an individual had a misfire and tried to open the action with the finger on the trigger and discharged 15 degrees away from the backstop. Imagine if that happened elsewhere? It doesn't have to be an NRA course. Just some basic understanding of the firearm and the big 3 rules is a good start.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Its a law for ATVs, Cars... I seen too many scary things at many ranges with accidental discharges by self taught individuals. Saw one yesterday, an individual had a misfire and tried to open the action with the finger on the trigger and discharged 15 degrees away from the backstop. Imagine if that happened elsewhere? It doesn't have to be an NRA course. Just some basic understanding of the firearm and the big 3 rules is a good start.

But should it be government mandated, or the individual's responsibility? I believe it is the individual's responsibility to learn and handle their firearm safely. If they have an ND in public, prosecute them for the mishandling, but don't assume they're stupid and need their hand held and REQUIRE training. STRONGLY RECOMMEND training, yes, REQUIRE training just to own or even carry, no.

If someone with no firearms training or a million hours of training acts responsibly with their firearm, the gov should butt out. If someone with a million hours of intensive firearms training or no firearms training mishandles their firearm then the gov should step in and prosecute that offense. The gov's job as I see it is to define and prosecute misconduct, not attempt to legislate stupid away cause that's just not gonna happen.

Someone with no training is probably more likely to have an accident than someone with lots of training, but I've heard of many people with LOTS of training having Negligent Discharges almost as often as I hear of people with NO training having ND's. I realize that probability of an ND goes up the more you handle a firearm regardless of your amount of training, and someone who trains often is most likely going to be handling a firearm much more than someone who does not train. I also realize the value of training and that more training usually makes you a safer gun handler. However, that is a big USUALLY and doesn't apply to all cases or all people.

I guess my Libertarian views are coming out. I just don't think it's the gov's job to tell me how to handle my own affairs unless I do something bad that affects another person (ie. a ND in public). If I'm capable of handling a firearm safely with no formal training because I learned it from my dad as a young child, and I go through my whole life carrying every day and not hurting anyone or acting irresponsibly, then the gov has no business telling me that I need to spend $50 or $100 or more on a class that I probably know more about than the instructor, just to get a piece of paper telling me I know what I already know.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Its a law for ATVs, Cars... I seen too many scary things at many ranges with accidental discharges by self taught individuals. Saw one yesterday, an individual had a misfire and tried to open the action with the finger on the trigger and discharged 15 degrees away from the backstop. Imagine if that happened elsewhere? It doesn't have to be an NRA course. Just some basic understanding of the firearm and the big 3 rules is a good start.

And it shouldn't be a law for ATV's and Cars. It's MY responsibility, not the gov's. Just because a law exists, doesn't mean it's a good law. What is the point of requiring a CWP in a car any way? The No Loaded Guns In Cars law was designed to prevent hunting from a vehicle. My thoughts are that if they want to prevent hunting from a vehicle, make a law against hunting from a vehicle and prosecute when you catch someone hunting from a vehicle. There are TONS of other reasons other than hunting for having a loaded firearm in a vehicle.

I can think of another reason why they would want the "no loaded guns in a vehicle" law to stay on the books. My guess is that police don't want their traffic stops turning into shootouts when someone pulls a gun on them. The argument for having this law for that reason fails as well though, because if someone is willing to shoot a cop, then they're not going to be unwilling to break the "no loaded guns in cars" law. It's an absurd thought.

This law does nothing to prevent hunting from a vehicle, and it does nothing to prevent cops from pulling over a murderer for a traffic violation. Therefore, it follows that this law serves no purpose other than to make a crime out of an activity that was previously not a crime and an activity that does not deserve to be labeled as a crime because it does not harm anyone or anything, and does not directly lead to the commission of another crime.
 
Top