• 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.

Is Maine going consitutional carry?

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
What the ....?

http://www.sunjournal.com/news/main...tutional-carry-bill-because-age-limit/1717820

Looks like the governor is NOT on board! Fricking sign the bill then fix the age restriction later. Then there is this so-called Maine gun owner's group spouting off hysteria about lack of training, geez!
The governor is trying to score at both ends of the field - playing political football with RKBA. He positions himself to sound like a friend while acting like an anti. With a friend like that............(you can fill in the rest)

Continued supression/restriction of freedom is the net result.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
What the ....?

http://www.sunjournal.com/news/main...tutional-carry-bill-because-age-limit/1717820

Looks like the governor is NOT on board! Fricking sign the bill then fix the age restriction later. Then there is this so-called Maine gun owner's group spouting off hysteria about lack of training, geez!
Would the legislation become law even if he does not sign it? I couldn't find anything that said he was going to veto it, just not sign it - there is a big difference.

Someone from Maine, please let us know ;-)
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Would the legislation become law even if he does not sign it? I couldn't find anything that said he was going to veto it, just not sign it - there is a big difference.

Someone from Maine, please let us know ;-)
Found the following "Produced and distributed under the direction of the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate." See section titled "Governor."

After a bill has been enacted by the Legislature, it is sent to the Governor, who has 10 days (not counting Sundays) to exercise one of three options. The Governor may sign the bill, or allow it to become law without signature.

If the Governor signs it, the bill ordinarily becomes law 90 days after the adjournment of that legislative session - unless it is an emergency measure, in which case it takes effect upon the Governor's signing or on a date specified in the bill.

If the Governor vetoes the bill, it is returned to the house of origin, where a 2/3 vote of those present and voting in both the House and Senate is required to override. The Governor's veto message may include comments on particular aspects of the bill and the reasons for rejecting it, possibly raising new issues for legislators to debate. If the Legislature overrides the Governor's veto, the bill becomes law without gubernatorial approval.
If the Governor does not support a bill but does not wish to veto it, it becomes law without the Governor's signature, if not signed and not returned to the Legislature within 10 days.

When the Legislature adjourns before the 10-day time limit has expired, a bill on which the Governor has not acted prior to the adjournment of the session becomes law unless the Governor vetoes it within 3 days after the reconvening of that Legislature. If there is not another meeting of that particular Legislature lasting more than 3 days, the bill does not become law.

http://www.state.me.us/legis/path/path.htm
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,256
Location
northern wis
So, the question becomes, when do we stop trading continued suppression/restriction of one freedom for the expansion of another?

When the antis stop trying to take are rights away. It took decades and many laws passed to get us to this point it well take as long to get us out.

Yes I would like clear supreme court ruling on the 2nd up holding our rights shall not infringe means shall not infringe yes I would like perfect laws but I'll take any step forward as positive.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
The bill contains two anti-RKBA amendments in it. 1. Raising the age limit from 18 to 21. 2. Makes it a civil infraction to not "immediately" inform a law enforcement officer when they "first come into contact" with that LEO of a legally concealed firearm (which, to me, is also a violation of the 4th Amendment) - unless they possess the government issued permission slip.

So, the question becomes, when do we stop trading continued suppression/restriction of one freedom for the expansion of another?
Those are not anti second amendment provisions, no court has held the second amendment to protect ccw at all.

The amendments only cover concealed carry without a license, open carry and ccw with license are not at all effected, so there is no trade off, it's completely advancing rights with no trade out at all.

If people like you were in charge of gun rights groups we'd have handguns banned, permanent AWB, no CCW etc but at least "we didn't compromise" geezus
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
398
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Then there is no reason to do away with the permit system at all....so this isn't an advancement of any 2nd Amendment rights so anyone who voted no against this could not be accused of being anti-RIGHT to keep and bear arms. And why is this being called "Constitutional Carry" when, according to you, it's got nothing to do with the Constitution?

It's because of people like you who like to say, "Well, the Constitution doesn't really apply to that part of bearing arms" that has gotten us into this mess to begin with.
The permit system isn't being done away with, it's still going to be for 18-20 y/o and for reciprocity.
I agree with EMNofSeattle....it moves the ball forward in a pretty big way. Our rights weren't swallowed up in one big gulp, so it's for that reason we don't get them back that way either. Once a year or two goes by with no "blood in the streets", getting the notification and 18-20 y/o restrictions removed should be easy.
 

USNVet

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
21
Location
Maine
Amemded!

Senate passed,
House passed, with added amendments for min age 21, and requirement to notify LEO if stopped, detained etc that you are armed.

Gov vetoed? refused to sign off unless amended to include min age 18 for service members.

Amended already to read: veterans 18 or older but not 21 yrs old are legal to CC if active duty, or veteran with honorable discharge.

Wow that was Quick........I think we'll see it enacted very soon!

http://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/dockets.asp?ID=280055116

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2015...ernor-refuses-sign-constitutional-carry-bill/

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/03/politics/state-house/senate-amends-concealed-carry-gun-bill/
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Senate passed,
House passed, with added amendments for min age 21, and requirement to notify LEO if stopped, detained etc that you are armed.

Gov vetoed? refused to sign off unless amended to include min age 18 for service members.

Amended already to read: veterans 18 or older but not 21 yrs old are legal to CC if active duty, or veteran with honorable discharge.

Wow that was Quick........I think we'll see it enacted very soon!

http://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/dockets.asp?ID=280055116

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2015...ernor-refuses-sign-constitutional-carry-bill/

http://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/03/politics/state-house/senate-amends-concealed-carry-gun-bill/
Sounds good to me

If this goes into law constitutional carry will take off, now we will have a democratic state with CC to enact it after sandy hook. This will change hearts in legislatures
 

CCinMaine

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Messages
193
Location
Windham, Maine
The bill contains two anti-RKBA amendments in it. 1. Raising the age limit from 18 to 21. 2. Makes it a civil infraction to not "immediately" inform a law enforcement officer when they "first come into contact" with that LEO of a legally concealed firearm (which, to me, is also a violation of the 4th Amendment) - unless they possess the government issued permission slip.
I was informed that the duty to inform was only applicable to non-cwp permit holders. Also under the current permitting system you only had to be 18. I don't know if the permit system will still operate the same or not and haven't been able to find out for sure about the duty to inform not applying to permit holders if someone could help me out with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
The text is clear...

I was informed that the duty to inform was only applicable to non-cwp permit holders. Also under the current permitting system you only had to be 18. I don't know if the permit system will still operate the same or not and haven't been able to find out for sure about the duty to inform not applying to permit holders if someone could help me out with that.
You're right about the requirement to declare if you DO NOT have a permit; if you have a permit, you are not required to declare. It's pretty clear in the amendment (quoted in part from the Maine Legislative web-site):

Sec. 3. 25 MRSA §2003-A is enacted to read:

§2003-A. Duty to inform law enforcement


When an individual who is carrying a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of this chapter and who does not have a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun that has been issued as provided in this chapter first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer...[definition of law enforcement officer]...[definition of contact]...that individual shall immediately inform that law enforcement officer of the fact that the individual is carrying a concealed handgun.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
It's a requirement that only infringes upon the rights of the law abiding citizens. If I am carrying a firearm illegally the duty to inform the officer of the fact that I am carrying a firearm would violate my 5th Amendment rights because it would require me to verbally self-incriminate. Oh well... I suppose it is better than some states who make it a crime for permit holders only to not inform, but people carrying illegally without the required permit have no requirement in law upon them to inform. Again, permitless is far from "Constitutional carry".
Incriminate yourself of what? If this law is signed carrying a concealed weapon will not be illegal thus no self incrimination can occur
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
Incriminate yourself of what? If this law is signed carrying a concealed weapon will not be illegal thus no self incrimination can occur
Think again... it IS illegal (Federal law) to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school without a concealed carry permit. So yes it is entirely possible to incriminate oneself under this notification requirement. Local law enforcement can theoretically enforce federal law, so if you happen to be in a city, or in an unfamiliar area in which you aren't sure where each and every public and private school is located, then yes the law requiring notification is unquestionably a problem.
 
Last edited:

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
Um, No...

Read this very slowly, the way that I would verbally express it to you.....

If I am a convicted felon, or if I have been convicted of domestic violence, or if I am an illegal alien, or if some other condition causes me to be prohibited from possessing a firearm...
This is the crux of the matter right here, isn't it. In this hypothetical instance, you've already broken federal law, you are in possession of a firearm that you're prohibited from possessing. Knowing that you're a prohibited person (and the use of "you" here is only for the sake of argument), you've chosen to commit a federal offense. Criminals don't obey laws; neither federal nor state. So it really is moot; by not obeying the federals laws, why do you care about state laws?

On the other hand, for law abiding citizens this is an alleviation of a restriction (permit-less) to our right to RKBA. The requirement to declare doesn't infringe on our right to carry as it does nothing at all to prohibit or restrict concealed carrying. Requiring a permit does infringe.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Think again... it IS illegal (Federal law) to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school without a concealed carry permit. So yes it is entirely possible to incriminate oneself under this notification requirement. Local law enforcement can theoretically enforce federal law, so if you happen to be in a city, or in an unfamiliar area in which you aren't sure where each and every public and private school is located, then yes the law requiring notification is unquestionably a problem.
The federal statute says nothing about 1000 ft.

Second Point. The way the statute is written, you're only required to inform if you're legally possessing the firearm. So in a school zone if you're illegally carrying, there is no duty to inform under this statute.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
On 28 MAY - Senate Roll Call #102 passed the bill. It was release, as amended to the house on 29 MAY. On 04 June the house passed it and sent it to the governor. Unless the governor specifically vetoes it, after 10 days without the governor's signature it becomes enacted.
So part of the dust, should be settled within the next few days.
 

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
Learning A Lot About The Process...

None of the above answers the question: is Maine going permit-less carry? I don't see anything definitive and the ME legislative site on LB 652 says that the bill hasn't been enacted by the Senate yet.

http://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280055116
Yes AND No...yes, in that a permit will not be required to carry concealed in Maine; and, no, the permit process will be voluntary and stay in place to satisfy reciprocity with other states and satisfy any federal laws that specifically include clauses about permits/licenses.

On 28 MAY - Senate Roll Call #102 passed the bill. It was release, as amended to the house on 29 MAY. On 04 June the house passed it and sent it to the governor. Unless the governor specifically vetoes it, after 10 days without the governor's signature it becomes enacted.
As a Mainer who is very interested in this bill, I'm learning a lot about the legislative process here in Maine. The bill hasn't been sent to the Governor yet. After amendments are attached and both chambers agree on the wording (votes to engross), then the House of Representatives votes to enact (which it has) and gives it back to the Senate. In the Senate, because it effects the budget (in a positive was, loss of a position, savings, etc), it's stay on the special appropriations table until either the budget is finalized or very late in the session year. Then the Senate will vote to enact and send it to the Governor.

So part of the dust, should be settled within the next few days.
In the mean time, another law was passed and signed by the Governor. LD868 (signed into law on June 5) removes much of the reciprocity requirements. Under the new law, any state that recognizes Maine's concealed carry permit is automatically extended reciprocity for their permits/licenses.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
The requirement to declare doesn't infringe on our right to carry as it does nothing at all to prohibit or restrict concealed carrying. Requiring a permit does infringe.
The requirement to declare that I am lawfully armed infringes on my right to remain silent. You are correct that it does not infringe on my right to be armed, at least technically, but it does involve trading in one right for another.

Imagine this scenario, I'm wandering outside a storefront with my cell phone looking for a good signal, not really paying attention to what is going on around me. I'm stopped by a police officer that says something like, "Sir, please pay attention, you almost stepped in that open man hole," or, "Sir, you seem lost, can I give you directions?" Now, how should I respond to this? Normally, in polite society, I'd thank the officer for his/her concern and continue on. But with a law requiring I inform a police officer that I am armed did this interaction trigger the need to inform? What if I stopped and engaged the officer to ask for directions to a place with Wi-Fi that is nearby? Suppose while I was doing this a car rear-ended another nearby and the police officer asked if I was injured and/or if I had seen what had happened? That is an interaction with a police officer, but bringing up the fact that I am armed does not seem to be relevant to the conversation and would likely only confuse the officer on why I would mention it.

Now, perhaps in one of the scenarios above I had informed the police officer that I was armed, and for some reason the officer viewed this as threatening. I'm arrested and it goes to court with a he-said/she-said back and forth over who said what, when, and how. As others have pointed out this duty to inform serves no purpose but to entrap those lawfully armed.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The requirement to declare that I am lawfully armed infringes on my right to remain silent. You are correct that it does not infringe on my right to be armed, at least technically, but it does involve trading in one right for another.
First of all, there is no "right" to remain silent. There is a right not to incriminate yourself. If you are not violating the law, there is nothing you can incriminate yourself about.

IOW, if you are legally carrying, informing can't incriminate yourself. If you are illegally carrying (prohibited location) then the law cannot compel you to inform.

Even assuming we want to accept a right to remain silent: It is a very small infringement on one right, for a much larger gain in another.

Or, if there is already a requirement to inform if you carry on a permit (is there in Maine, I don't know), then there is really no loss of right to remain silent from current statute, simply a huge gain in the RKBA.

Politics is the art of the possible, and the perfect can far too often be the enemy of the very good.

Imagine this scenario, ..... As others have pointed out this duty to inform serves no purpose but to entrap those lawfully armed.
The duty to inform is far from perfect. However, it was deemed necessary to get the support to pass Constitutional Carry in Alaska nearly 12 years ago. In Alaska they changed the definition of the crime from "carrying without a permit" to "carrying and failing to inform an officer when contacted". I'm sure that if the scenario you've described is a real danger it would have come up in the Alaska over the past decade-plus and we'd gain some insights. How many instances have occurred in Alaska in nearly 12 years? I suspect the answer to that question is too few for anyone to have even bothered trying to remove the duty to inform from the law.

Which brings up the next point: Incrementalism. About 15 years ago Utah moved to recognize all permits nationwide without regard to whether the issuing State recognized our permits, whether the requirements were similar, etc. We just recognized all permits. In order to gain the last couple of votes needed to gain final passage, an amendment was added to only recognize permits for 60 consecutive days. I was very unhappy at the legislator who did this. He explained it was the only way to assuage a couple of colleagues who worried about Utahns skirting our requirements by getting permits from other States. He also assured me the 60 day limit would be repealed within a couple of years. Two years later, the same law enforcement agencies that had created the FUD that lead to demands for a 60 day limit were quietly encouraging the 60 day limit to be repealed as entirely unnecessary and unenforceable. How do you prove someone hasn't left the State--however briefly--sometime in the last 2 months?

I learned a valuable lesson. Getting Utah to recognize all permits opened the flood gates of other States recognizing our permits. It helped set the stage for States to emulate us in recognizing all permits. It was a HUGE win for RKBA not just in Utah, but ultimately across the nation.

That 60 day limit was a minor annoyance that was never enforced and went away quietly in fairly short order.

A duty to inform is a bigger deal. But to get Constitutional Carry? A small price to pay; really not even a price to pay, just not getting everything you'd like...today.

If it is a problem it can be repealed. If it isn't a problem, it can still be repealed at some point.

Congrats to Maine.

Charles
 
Top