• 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?

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
They could arrest you and accuse you of assaulting them. Your argument is a straw man argument.
Well, I see unlawful stops like this make the news all the time. Details are sketchy since its still being argued in court and no one is talking but a guy is now dead because he was unlawfully arrested for having a knife. Again, details are sketchy, but as I recall the guy was overweight, diabetic, had mental issues, and was not properly restrained when placed in the police van. He ended up injuring himself and his medical issues compounded the problems. That is one extreme example of many that don't result in dead citizens.

I'm saying the duty to inform empowers police to fine a person for "contempt of cop". It happens. We could do less with laws that make it easy for less than stellar cops to make our lives difficult.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Well, I see unlawful stops like this make the news all the time. Details are sketchy since its still being argued in court and no one is talking but a guy is now dead because he was unlawfully arrested for having a knife. Again, details are sketchy, but as I recall the guy was overweight, diabetic, had mental issues, and was not properly restrained when placed in the police van. He ended up injuring himself and his medical issues compounded the problems. That is one extreme example of many that don't result in dead citizens.

I'm saying the duty to inform empowers police to fine a person for "contempt of cop". It happens. We could do less with laws that make it easy for less than stellar cops to make our lives difficult.
what you don't see in the news is the millions of perfectly lawful arrests performed all the time. You're talking about a small minority of unlawful arrests, in such a situation, IF you're carrying concealed without a permit, then inform the officer as the new law requires and there's no further issue. This new law doesn't change anything regarding an unlawful arrest for any reason...
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
I see our posts crossed and I think I addressed most of this already so I'll try to be brief.

The examples I gave were reasons why someone might be stopped, not necessarily implying that the person was armed at the time or that the person did commit the crime they are accused of. Yes, entering a restaurant while armed when a notice is posted is unlawful but a police officer is not likely to know that a bulge on the belt is not a firearm but is in fact an insulin pump until the person is searched. A person may walk past some litter and an officer may stop and ask that they pick up "their" trash, had that happen to me.

This bill has a lot of "ifs", "ands", and "therefores" making this more complex than it should be. People are required to inform of a concealed weapon unless they have a permit. People under 21 cannot carry concealed unless they are in the armed forces. And so on. The bill as written originally was so clean and then some hoplophobes, and the governor, made it complicated. This complication makes it much easier for someone to unintentionally violate the law and/or make it more difficult to give a defense in court.

Lastly, yes, this does nothing to prevent officers from acting outside of the law. The problem I see is that it can embolden officers and empower unlawful actions because of the amendments added to gather favor from legislators and the governor. Seems to me that this could have been avoided by not asking for the governor's signature and just allow it to become law without it. The governor didn't say he'd veto the law, just that he would not sign as it was.

A side note: You say "a small minority of officers" but I've heard otherwise. As you said, that is entirely a different discussion.
Litter example: not a detainment, a request and a consensual encounter at that point.

Insulin pump example. What happens under current law? Officer sees insulin pump, thinks it's gun. Person doesn't have to inform because it's not a gun. Officer searches person because he believes there's a violation of the law. Finds insulin pump. Realizes mistake and apologizes. What happens under new law is the same thing... The only difference occurs if the person is ACTUALLY carrying a gun illegally...

Under 21 example. The default status is legal carry, not illegal carry. If officer believes person to be between 18 and 21 they must assume military or CCW permit unless they have reason to believe otherwise.
 
Last edited:

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
This new law doesn't change anything regarding an unlawful arrest for any reason...
I didn't say it did, I said it gives an officer an additional means to enforce "contempt of cop". We should avoid such laws.

Litter example:...

Insulin pump example. ...

Under 21 example. ...
I was answering your question on why a person would be stopped. I gave several reasons why with examples of violations that may be real or imagined. Whether that escalates to anything more is entirely up to the situation. I think you are reading too much into what I wrote.

The default status is legal carry, not illegal carry.
But yet articles of unlawful stops by police still make the news. Why should I expect Maine to be different? I was listening to Tom Gresham on his pod cast some time ago and he and his guests seemed to agree that the ratio of bad cops to good cops was 2 to 1, 2/3rds of the police force is looking to give people a bad day. Tom Gresham not someone prone to hyperbole. If you don't agree with me, or Tom Gresham, that is fine. Just please stop putting words in my mouth.

Let me ask you this, if there is an assumption of lawful carry then are you not agreeing with me that the duty to inform is unenforceable? If everyone stopped by police fails to inform then the officers MUST assume the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, or no concealed weapon. If a person is arrested for some offense or another, but was otherwise lawfully carrying, then do they not have their Miranda rights to clam up? Seems to me that no one could be charged under this law or potentially everyone could, every stop of an armed person could turn into the child's game of UNO to see who can say the magic words first.

Again, this is a stupid law and that it got past the legislature shows that the people that voted on this failed in a big way.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
I didn't say it did, I said it gives an officer an additional means to enforce "contempt of cop". We should avoid such laws.



I was answering your question on why a person would be stopped. I gave several reasons why with examples of violations that may be real or imagined. Whether that escalates to anything more is entirely up to the situation. I think you are reading too much into what I wrote.



But yet articles of unlawful stops by police still make the news. Why should I expect Maine to be different? I was listening to Tom Gresham on his pod cast some time ago and he and his guests seemed to agree that the ratio of bad cops to good cops was 2 to 1, 2/3rds of the police force is looking to give people a bad day. Tom Gresham not someone prone to hyperbole. If you don't agree with me, or Tom Gresham, that is fine. Just please stop putting words in my mouth.

Let me ask you this, if there is an assumption of lawful carry then are you not agreeing with me that the duty to inform is unenforceable? If everyone stopped by police fails to inform then the officers MUST assume the person has a permit for a concealed weapon, or no concealed weapon. If a person is arrested for some offense or another, but was otherwise lawfully carrying, then do they not have their Miranda rights to clam up? Seems to me that no one could be charged under this law or potentially everyone could, every stop of an armed person could turn into the child's game of UNO to see who can say the magic words first.

Again, this is a stupid law and that it got past the legislature shows that the people that voted on this failed in a big way.
It's only enforceable as an extra penalty if it comes out during the stop that you're carrying and didn't inform.

Examples:


You're carrying and don't inform, Cop legally stops you for something else. Cop never finds out, no ticket. (Most likely scenario to be honest)
You're carrying with or without permit. Cop notices or suspects a gun, but has no reasonable suspicion of crime. Cop cannot legally stop you. No stop, no duty to inform, no ticket. If he does unlawfully stop you, you get to keep all the cop's money... no qualified immunity for an officer infringing your rights.
You're carrying with permit and don't inform. Cop legally stops you for something else. Cop finds gun during course of investigation, asks for permit, you provide. No ticket.
You're not carrying and don't inform. Cop legally stops you for something else. Cop thinks there is a gun and searches for it (they can already to this already under Terry mind you) Finds no gun. No ticket.
You're carrying without permit and don't inform. Cop finds gun, writes ticket. You broke the law and will be penalized for it.

I can't think of any other scenario. Remember, the legislature can't write law assuming police are going to abuse it... If the assumption is that police will abuse their authority, then they shouldn't criminalize ANYTHING by that logic because anything that's against the law can be exploited by a rogue, unlawful cop.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
But yet articles of unlawful stops by police still make the news. Why should I expect Maine to be different?
Absolutely correct. However, how does this law add to that problem? It only adds to the problem if you DON'T inform AND are carrying without a permit. If the cop is making an unlawful stop, then he's going to make it with or without this duty to inform. What is the issue with informing during such unlawful stop? How does that change the outcome? The officer is already decided that he's going to rake you over the coals with some bogus thing...
 
Last edited:

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
It's only enforceable as an extra penalty if it comes out during the stop that you're carrying and didn't inform.
Right, an extra penalty. So a person is stopped for driving while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter, speeding, failure to maintain lane, running a stop light, and failure to inform while armed. Do you really think that anyone in this scenario would actually be charged for such a minor infraction? It reads like a punchline to a joke... "We charge the accused with five counts rape, two counts murder in the second degree, six counts of kidnapping, and jaywalking."

You're carrying and don't inform, Cop legally stops you for something else. Cop never finds out, no ticket. (Most likely scenario to be honest)
Agreed.

You're carrying with or without permit. Cop notices or suspects a gun, but has no reasonable suspicion of crime. Cop cannot legally stop you. No stop, no duty to inform, no ticket. If he does unlawfully stop you, you get to keep all the cop's money... no qualified immunity for an officer infringing your rights.
Right, I get all the cops money. Northrup v. Toledo has been in the courts for over four years and only recently has there been a decision that the officer does not have qualified immunity and can be sued individually. That's not reassuring.

You're carrying with permit and don't inform. Cop legally stops you for something else. Cop finds gun during course of investigation, asks for permit, you provide. No ticket.
Wait a minute, I thought this was a permitless carry law. Why should I ever have to show a permit? Seems to be that this "minor" change in the law just gutted the intent.

You're not carrying and don't inform. Cop legally stops you for something else. Cop thinks there is a gun and searches for it (they can already to this already under Terry mind you) Finds no gun. No ticket.
Agreed.

You're carrying without permit and don't inform. Cop finds gun, writes ticket. You broke the law and will be penalized for it.
Yep, and maybe the cop lied about my failure to inform and wrote a citation anyway. Also, there does not seem to be a bright line on the distinction between a consensual encounter, detainment, and arrest. Sounds similar to what happened to Zimmerman, was he ordered to stop following Martin, or was he merely informed that there was no need to follow? In my example above when an officer said, "stay here" was that a request that I stay and I was free to walk away, or an order that I not leave and therefore detained?

I can't think of any other scenario. Remember, the legislature can't write law assuming police are going to abuse it... If the assumption is that police will abuse their authority, then they shouldn't criminalize ANYTHING by that logic because anything that's against the law can be exploited by a rogue, unlawful cop.
I disagree, the legislature should always look for ways that a law might be abused. It this their mandate to be a check on executive authority.

Absolutely correct. However, how does this law add to that problem? It only adds to the problem if you DON'T inform AND are carrying without a permit. If the cop is making an unlawful stop, then he's going to make it with or without this duty to inform. What is the issue with informing during such unlawful stop? How does that change the outcome? The officer is already decided that he's going to rake you over the coals with some bogus thing...
The issue is that this duty to inform tears the heart out of permitless carry. The whole point of permitless carry, or so I thought, was that the government need not know when or if we are armed. It simply is none of their business. If a police officer does not assume that everyone they encounter may be armed then they need to go back to the academy.

When we started here I thought that this duty to inform was merely inconvenient, and a potential avenue for abuse. Now I see it for what it really is, it's a way for the government to keep track of those lawfully armed. They are going to get the names of those that go armed one way or another. You can inform them beforehand with a permit (giving them your name and address), inform them that you are armed when stopped (and presumably giving your name and address), or keep quiet and run the risk of being fined (and then giving them your name and address in court).

This is worse than I originally thought.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Wait a minute, I thought this was a permitless carry law. Why should I ever have to show a permit? Seems to be that this "minor" change in the law just gutted the intent.
Part of the beauty of the law is that it leaves the current permitting process intact exactly as it currently stands. If you don't want to have to inform, then you can get a permit. You can also use the permit for reciprocity with other states.

Yep, and maybe the cop lied about my failure to inform and wrote a citation anyway.
And maybe he lied about you speeding or jaywalking. This law again doesn't change the ability of a cop to lie to extort money out of you. Pointless discussion.

Also, there does not seem to be a bright line on the distinction between a consensual encounter, detainment, and arrest. Sounds similar to what happened to Zimmerman, was he ordered to stop following Martin, or was he merely informed that there was no need to follow? In my example above when an officer said, "stay here" was that a request that I stay and I was free to walk away, or an order that I not leave and therefore detained?
The line has been WELL established by Supreme Court Case law. If a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave, then they are detained. If a cop says "stay here" Then you are legally detained. He's issued an order and a reasonable person would believe that means you have to stay. If he said "would you mind staying here?" Then you are free to go. Whether or not you recognize that subtle difference is on you, not the officer.

I disagree, the legislature should always look for ways that a law might be abused. It this their mandate to be a check on executive authority.
Again, this law offers no new abuse that an officer intent on pinning you with a fine couldn't impose already.


The issue is that this duty to inform tears the heart out of permitless carry. The whole point of permitless carry, or so I thought, was that the government need not know when or if we are armed. It simply is none of their business. If a police officer does not assume that everyone they encounter may be armed then they need to go back to the academy.
You misinterpret the intent of permitless carry in this legislation. No one ever talked about the needs or desires of the government to know when we are armed. The intent of the law was to allow for the convenience of the people to be armed without having to jump through the additional hoop of getting a permit, and to allow someone who is legally open carrying to wear a jacket without breaking the law. That's the intent of this law.

When we started here I thought that this duty to inform was merely inconvenient, and a potential avenue for abuse. Now I see it for what it really is, it's a way for the government to keep track of those lawfully armed. They are going to get the names of those that go armed one way or another. You can inform them beforehand with a permit (giving them your name and address), inform them that you are armed when stopped (and presumably giving your name and address), or keep quiet and run the risk of being fined (and then giving them your name and address in court).

This is worse than I originally thought.
Keep wearing that tin foil hat then. They must be all out to get you for sure. They were keeping track of you before with the permits. Now they can only keep track of you if you do something to get yourself stopped by police. I'm sure that everyone that informs they're definitely going to be putting into a database for later seizure and confiscation /sarcasm
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
Again, this law offers no new abuse that an officer intent on pinning you with a fine couldn't impose already.
Sure it does, a $100 fine for failure to inform that did not exist before.

You misinterpret the intent of permitless carry in this legislation. No one ever talked about the needs or desires of the government to know when we are armed. The intent of the law was to allow for the convenience of the people to be armed without having to jump through the additional hoop of getting a permit, and to allow someone who is legally open carrying to wear a jacket without breaking the law. That's the intent of this law.
Then they failed to reach their intended goal. They got real close, but just need to go a bit further.

Keep wearing that tin foil hat then. They must be all out to get you for sure. They were keeping track of you before with the permits. Now they can only keep track of you if you do something to get yourself stopped by police. I'm sure that everyone that informs they're definitely going to be putting into a database for later seizure and confiscation /sarcasm
Yes, yes, of course, it's just "tinfoil hattery". If the government wasn't out to disarm us then why do we have this bill? I mean if they weren't out to disarm us then we shouldn't need a law that says they can't, right? Why do you think that concealed carry permits were created in the first place? Were they not intended to make records of those that carried a concealed weapon? The hoplophobes saw that now the government cannot keep track of who is armed, so they did what they could to make sure the status quo was maintained while still appearing to care about our rights.

As stated before by others this is not a perfect law as it should have protected the right of all legal adults to carry from the beginning, not just those older than 21 years. I think the governor made a major miscalculation by not signing the bill as it was first presented to him. Since he stated his intent to not sign unless it included those over 18 years old the hoplophobes got another chance to weaken protections from government intrusion.

We should see by the end of the week if Maine got constitutional carry or some form of permitless carry. Some might consider the two synonymous but I do not. Constitutional carry means I can lawfully carry a weapon, concealed and openly, without informing the government of my intent to do so. Permitless carry means that one may carry a weapon, concealed or openly, without having to also carry a permission slip issued by a government agent.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Sure it does, a $100 fine for failure to inform that did not exist before.


Then they failed to reach their intended goal. They got real close, but just need to go a bit further.


Yes, yes, of course, it's just "tinfoil hattery". If the government wasn't out to disarm us then why do we have this bill? I mean if they weren't out to disarm us then we shouldn't need a law that says they can't, right? Why do you think that concealed carry permits were created in the first place? Were they not intended to make records of those that carried a concealed weapon? The hoplophobes saw that now the government cannot keep track of who is armed, so they did what they could to make sure the status quo was maintained while still appearing to care about our rights.

As stated before by others this is not a perfect law as it should have protected the right of all legal adults to carry from the beginning, not just those older than 21 years. I think the governor made a major miscalculation by not signing the bill as it was first presented to him. Since he stated his intent to not sign unless it included those over 18 years old the hoplophobes got another chance to weaken protections from government intrusion.

We should see by the end of the week if Maine got constitutional carry or some form of permitless carry. Some might consider the two synonymous but I do not. Constitutional carry means I can lawfully carry a weapon, concealed and openly, without informing the government of my intent to do so. Permitless carry means that one may carry a weapon, concealed or openly, without having to also carry a permission slip issued by a government agent.
The bill was never presented to him for him to reject. He only announced his opposition AFTER they put the over 21 and the duty to inform amendments in...

You need to study the history of gun banning and CCW permits. Prohibitions on carrying firearms in public stemmed from the aftermath of the civil war when southern states didn't want freed slaves taking arms against their former masters. The prohibitions are rooted in Racism. Concealed carry permits are a pretty recent phenomenon. Up until about 1970 most states prohibited carry in public outright and had since the civil war. Permitted carry started as a relaxing of those policies. Would you rather go back to before permits when it was just banned outright? Across the country gun rights is winning in landslides and rarely loses ground.

The law would of course be better without the duty to inform, but you're portraying that as a HUGE loss, when in fact there is NO LOSS here. It's all gain. There is NOTHING that we have to do now that we didn't have to do before...
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
The line has been WELL established by Supreme Court Case law. If a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave, then they are detained. If a cop says "stay here" Then you are legally detained. He's issued an order and a reasonable person would believe that means you have to stay. If he said "would you mind staying here?" Then you are free to go. Whether or not you recognize that subtle difference is on you, not the officer.
How am I supposed to know if the officer saying, "Stay here," was a request to keep back from a potential danger or a lawful detention for questioning? In my mind rubberneckers are a problem and I tend to keep clear of places where there are police officers trying to do their job. Had I actually been in a situation like I described I'd probably have left to go find a coffee shop when the officer stopped talking to me and went to check on the fender bender.

There are court cases all the time arguing over how a "reasonable person" might respond. In many cases there is more than one "reasonable" response. No one can read a police officer's mind on what they intended and the English language is imprecise. I believe that you are mistaken that everyone is going to know instinctively when they are lawfully detained or not.

It appears that we both agree that should a person be lawfully detained for something like a traffic stop or as a potential witness to a crime that no one would actually be charged with failing to inform. The police have better things to worry about. So, I ask again, how has the public interest been served by adding the duty to inform to the law? It's pointless, largely unenforceable, and open for abuse. The legislators should have known better to put it in the bill. The governor should have know better than to refuse to sign the bill as originally presented to him.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
We have this bill because they USED to be out to disarm us... Currently they're on our side...
Really? If the government no longer cares if visitors to Maine are armed or not then why would they impose a requirement to inform of being armed, and impose a fine on those that fail to do so? Obviously there is still a significant element in the government that is uncomfortable with the idea of an armed polite society. These people are playing with our rights like they are poker chips. If someone shows their hand too early we could end up with nothing.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
The governor should have know better than to refuse to sign the bill as originally presented to him.
You've said this twice now... the bill was never "originally presented to him"

The bill was still in the amendment process when he made his comments. The ONLY thing that changed since he made those comments was the military exemption. The duty to inform and the over 21 amendments were already in the bill.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
The bill was never presented to him for him to reject. He only announced his opposition AFTER they put the over 21 and the duty to inform amendments in...
I'm trying to look back at what was voted on when and the Maine bill tracking site does not make that easy. Regardless I believe the governor could have done better to get a good law on the books.

Would you rather go back to before permits when it was just banned outright?
Wow, hyperbole much? Of course I would not want to go back to when carry was banned. I am also aware of when and how the bans came about.

The law would of course be better without the duty to inform, but you're portraying that as a HUGE loss, when in fact there is NO LOSS here. It's all gain. There is NOTHING that we have to do now that we didn't have to do before...
I'm not saying that LD 652 would be a loss, I'm saying it's not much of a gain. There are so many ifs, ands, and buts, that it's effectively meaningless. There the 21 year age limit, the military requirement for those 18-20 years old, the duty to inform, the federal gun free school zone laws, and probably more I missed. The best policy whether or not the bill passes is to get your permit, conceal carry, and shut up.

I think the real big gain here is with LD 868, the universal reciprocity bill. That takes the recognition of non-resident permits from eight to 30+. This is already law so no need to speculate on what it will do and when. With LD 868 now law the people that would take advantage of LD 652 as it is currently written is exceedingly small.

You've said this twice now... the bill was never "originally presented to him"
Yes you did, and if you look at the time stamps of when I posted I was typing my responses when you said it the first time. Chill.

Looking at the history of the bill, and when the governor made his statements, the bill had passed both the House and Senate when the governor stated refusal to sign. Had the governor said something about the duty to inform at that time he may have been able to get it off the bill. Had he stated he'd sign a bill that protected the rights of all 18 year old citizens, not just those in the military, he might have been able to get that too. From where I sit I cannot know all the minute details of what goes on in the hearts and minds of Maine legislators. Obviously there are plenty of Maine legislators willing to vote for a permitless carry bill, no doubt so that they can keep being a politician in the future. The question is how far can this be pushed by the sponsors and the governor.

It looks like there is still a chance that the duty to inform could be removed. Unlikely I know, but it sure would be nice.
 

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
Legislative History of LD652...

IA_farmboy, I acknowledge that I've picked and chosen snippets of your comments...so you can legitimately ding me for that, if you chose...

I'm not saying that LD 652 would be a loss, I'm saying it's not much of a gain. There are so many ifs, ands, and buts, that it's effectively meaningless.
The way that we in Maine view this is that it's a big deal, huge victory for RKBA, and in no way meaningless. To us it's a major big deal, even with the duty to inform (which actually is a minor irritant and in no way is perceived as an obstacle). Like it's been noted before, after a year or two, after the dust settles and everyone sees that any anti-LD652 hysteria was unfounded, it can be removed.

Looking at the history of the bill, and when the governor made his statements, the bill had passed both the House and Senate when the governor stated refusal to sign.
Now the history based on the legislative tracking site and news releases: Action_By_Maine_Legislature_on_LD652
03/03/2015 - bill LD652, sponsored by Sen. Brakey, is referred to joint committee by both Senate and House
05/26/2015 - amended out of committee to include fiscal effects of bill enactment, with reports to both chambers (majority ought not to pass, minority ought to pass)
05/29/2015 - Senate amends bill to include safety brochure requirement, passes bill as amended, sends to House for concurrence
06/01/2015 - House amends bill to include duty to inform, accepts Senate and Committee amendments, passes bill, sends back to Senate for concurrence
06/02/2015 - Governor LePage announces that he won't sign the bill (strongly implying veto) due to lack of military provision for active duty and veterans 18-21
06/03/2015 - Senate amends bill to include military-related age provision, re-words House amendments, passes bill, sends back to House for concurrence
06/04/2015 - House concurs with Senate version of the bill, passes it to be engrossed
06/04/2015 - Senate accepts concurrence and passes bill to be engrossed
06/04/2015 - House passes engrossed bill to be enacted
06/04/2015 - Senate parks bill on appropriations table pending legislative procedural action
 

USNVet

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
21
Location
Maine
unbelievable: https://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/15/politics/cost-could-hold-up-maine-bill-to-allow-concealed-weapons-without-permit/

LD652 may be unsettled due to concerns over loss of revenue from fines from those carrying concealed without a proper permit and concerns of loss of permit fee's revenue. So in effect it is like saying the current law should not be changed based on lost revenues, instead of doing the right thing. How many other laws are there to generate revenue as a priority over serving a valid need for them?

Yet it was pointed out in other news releases that the passing of LD652 would eliminate 2 clerks and 1 detective position, and save somewhere around 150k-160k in annual salaries required to administer permits. This was not mentioned in this latest article.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
unbelievable: https://bangordailynews.com/2015/06/15/politics/cost-could-hold-up-maine-bill-to-allow-concealed-weapons-without-permit/

LD652 may be unsettled due to concerns over loss of revenue from fines from those carrying concealed without a proper permit and concerns of loss of permit fee's revenue. So in effect it is like saying the current law should not be changed based on lost revenues, instead of doing the right thing. How many other laws are there to generate revenue as a priority over serving a valid need for them?

Yet it was pointed out in other news releases that the passing of LD652 would eliminate 2 clerks and 1 detective position, and save somewhere around 150k-160k in annual salaries required to administer permits. This was not mentioned in this latest article.
At first I thought it was an Onion article. That will be NH, WV, MT and ME with failed attempts this year. This is by far the most humorous. The others were just Demonrat vetoes. Land of the coward, home of the slave.
 
Last edited:

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
The way that we in Maine view this is that it's a big deal, huge victory for RKBA, and in no way meaningless.
The bill as written would be meaningless, and given the recent development on the problems of funding it's looking more likely that the bill will not become law.

You want to talk about wins? I'll talk about wins. You got universal reciprocity. You got suppressors legalized. You have the legislature talking about repealing the permit to carry requirement. Those are wins. Getting this bill to become law would not be a win.

I checked the laws in other states and I saw no state that had both permitless carry and a duty to notify, despite claims to the contrary earlier in this thread. There may have been a time when states had duty to inform and no requirement for a permit but not now. I've been told that Maine could pass this law and fix the duty to inform later, and that is true. What I'm saying is that so long as the duty to inform exists the permitless carry law would be a hollow victory. It's not "constitutional carry" if the government can punish someone for not telling them they are armed. It sounds like "permitless carry" to me but Maine already has that with open carry laws.

If you want to have claim to "constitutional carry" then Maine would have to make it clear in law, or by the absence of it, that the carry of self defense tools can not be held against visitors and citizens. I don't buy this "just don't break the law" cop out. The constitution says I have the right to keep and bear arms, any conditions placed on that right means it's not really a right.

I suspect someone might want to point out that the federal government has it's own ideas on what the Second Amendment means, and therefore someone could be punished for violating that even in Maine. That would be true, but if the state of Maine placed no conditions on the right to keep and bear arms then we can say that Maine does have "constitutional carry" but the federal government does not. I will accept that could be considered a distinction without a difference.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
The bill as written would be meaningless, and given the recent development on the problems of funding it's looking more likely that the bill will not become law.
How would it be meaningless? You are now able to conceal without a permit. That's HUGE, not meaningless.
 
Top