Fight Against "Capitol Area" Carry

[boyscout399]

No, this issue is not about state preemption - state preemption statute(s) in Maine, like most states, apply to localities, not state agencies.

As a general matter of administrative law, state agencies cannot just issue regulations willy nilly - their power is confined by the enabling legislation. "Statutes granting power to administrative agencies are strictly construed to permit only those powers given expressly or by necessary implication. An agency or board created by the legislature has powers which are expressly or impliedly conferred on it by statute. Such statutes are generally strictly construed to prevent the exercise of power which is not expressly granted[ii]. In Mayland v. Flitner, 2001 WY 69 (Wyo. 2001), the court held that a statute will be strictly construed when determining the authority granted to an agency. The court further held that any agency decision that falls outside the limits of the statutory guidelines expressed by the legislature is contrary to law and cannot stand." http://administrativelaw.uslegal.co...cies/construction-of-statutes-granting-powers

So if you contend that the Bureau of Capitol Security has the power to regulate gun carry, please cite to authority, e.g., the statute enabling the Bureau of Capitol Security to issue regulations in the first place, and point out where the statute enables the Bureau to regulate gun carry.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/5/title5ch375sec0.html

Those are the statutes applying to agency rulemaking. Maine gives pretty much unlimited authority for state agencies to make rules, and those rules do hold the weight of law. That's why I wanted to put into the pre-emption statute a clause to limit state agencies rule making powers pertaining to firearms.

 

[Grapeshot]

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/5/title5ch375sec0.html

Those are the statutes applying to agency rulemaking. Maine gives pretty much unlimited authority for state agencies to make rules, and those rules do hold the weight of law. That's why I wanted to put into the pre-emption statute a clause to limit state agencies rule making powers pertaining to firearms.

8. Appropriate reference to underlying federal and state laws and regulations. At the time of adoption of any rule, the agency shall refer with particularity to any underlying federal or state law or regulation which serves as the basis of the rule.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/5/title5ch375sec0.html

Why does this not put it right back where Mike indicated?

 

[boyscout399]

8. Appropriate reference to underlying federal and state laws and regulations. At the time of adoption of any rule, the agency shall refer with particularity to any underlying federal or state law or regulation which serves as the basis of the rule.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/5/title5ch375sec0.html

Why does this not put it right back where Mike indicated?

Notice that it does not say that it must have a underlying federal or state law serving as the basis of the rule. It only says that they need to refer to any that are underlying laws serving as the basis of the rule. It's tricky language, but it doesn't actually require there to be a basis, just that if there is a basis, it must be stated. The fact of the matter is that the rule WAS legally adopted and IS in effect.

 

[Butch00]

It violates the Right to Bear Arms, A Constitutional Right which means it is VOID.

 

[Grapeshot]

8. Appropriate reference to underlying federal and state laws and regulations. At the time of adoption of any rule, the agency shall refer with particularity to any underlying federal or state law or regulation which serves as the basis of the rule.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/5/title5ch375sec0.html

Why does this not put it right back where Mike indicated?

Notice that it does not say that it must have a underlying federal or state law serving as the basis of the rule. It only says that they need to refer to any that are underlying laws serving as the basis of the rule. It's tricky language, but it doesn't actually require there to be a basis, just that if there is a basis, it must be stated. The fact of the matter is that the rule WAS legally adopted and IS in effect.

I would surely (I did) have read that to mean that w/o any statutory authority then there would be no basis. Therefore no permissible rule. Has this ever been contested in court?

Frankly, I've never seen such carte blanch as you indicate - I'm truly appalled.

 

[Grapeshot]

It violates the Right to Bear Arms, A Constitutional Right which means it is VOID.

Might agree that it is voidable with lots of money and the right attorney before a favorable court.

Wanna be a test case? You might want to factor in a considerable amount of time too, as well as other potential loses if you do not win......on all levels.

 

[Mike]

Notice that it does not say that it must have a underlying federal or state law serving as the basis of the rule. It only says that they need to refer to any that are underlying laws serving as the basis of the rule. It's tricky language, but it doesn't actually require there to be a basis, just that if there is a basis, it must be stated. The fact of the matter is that the rule WAS legally adopted and IS in effect.

You are reading a meaning into the statute that is not there, and more importantly, cannot be there. The constitutional non-delegation doctrine precludes legislative bodies from merely delegating their general legislative power to executive agencies. See generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine and case law cited above.

 

[boyscout399]

You are reading a meaning into the statute that is not there, and more importantly, cannot be there. The constitutional non-delegation doctrine precludes legislative bodies from merely delegating their general legislative power to executive agencies. See generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine and case law cited above.

Then how do you explain the BATFE creating regulations that carry the weight of law? How do you explain the FDA creating regulations and enforcing them? It's not right, but it is what the current state of affairs is. If you carry there and they find out. They WILL arrest you and you WILL go to jail and a judge WILL convict you. So what's the point in arguing about whether or not the law is legal in the first place. They hold the power, therefore the law stands. We need to fight to get the law changed, not argue over whether or not the law is enforceable. The fact is they WILL enforce it, and they have the power to enforce it. (not talking legislative power to enforce, but physical power to enforce)

 

[Butch00]

I just looked up the address for Bureau of Capitol Security.
I found one site that said: Capitol Security in Augusta ME. is a private company
categorized under Police Departments.
I'll be in Maine for the winter, I'll start doing some research on the Capitol Area.

 

[SPOProds]

I just looked up the address for Bureau of Capitol Security.
I found one site that said: Capitol Security in Augusta ME. is a private company
categorized under Police Departments.
I'll be in Maine for the winter, I'll start doing some research on the Capitol Area.

Capitol Security is different than the DPS. DPS is the department "granted" the authority, not capitol security.

I also find it interesting that Maine has imminent domain over Augusta is it wishes.

 

[Butch00]

I fight a little different than other people, most are brainwashed into believing they have to go to court.
That is what government/corporation wants you to do, waste a lot of time and money.
I use administrative process. So I'll be serving papers on Capitol Security and the DPS, when I get back there.

Let me add: The Maine Constitution says.....Your right to bear arms shall never be questioned.
How hard is that to understand.

 

[boyscout399]

I fight a little different than other people, most are brainwashed into believing they have to go to court.
That is what government/corporation wants you to do, waste a lot of time and money.
I use administrative process. So I'll be serving papers on Capitol Security and the DPS, when I get back there.

Let me add: The Maine Constitution says.....Your right to bear arms shall never be questioned.
How hard is that to understand.

I understand what the Constitution says, but when you have cops that are willing to ignore it, and judges that are willing to ignore it, and lawyers that are willing to ignore it, and prosecutors that are willing to ignore it, and jailors who are willing to ignore it, and they're all willing to use force to ignore it, then it's moot to discuss it. They have all interpreted it to mean something different. The only way is to FORCE the change down their throats at that point. And the only way to do that, is to find someone who DOES have power who is willing to fight for your cause.

 

[SPOProds]

Frack it, case law is the only way. If I had the 20k to pursue a federal suit I'd OC in the Capitol Area. However, I've already invested my own money and time to the Connecticut OC fight. With no job, and no welfare, in Maine, I don't have the same resources.

 

[Butch00]

The thing I have a problem getting people to understand is the STATE OF MAINE is a Private Corporation.
What is a Corporation, an Artificially created Individual. I have a court case from a circuit court of the United States
from 1796 and it says, The United States of America is a Corporation and has authority over other Corporations or
artificial individuals.
If you do go to court you have to go yourself and not with a lawyer because he is the enemy.
That's as deep as I'll go on here. I don't want to get banned.
If anyone is interested PM me

 

[boyscout399]

The thing I have a problem getting people to understand is the STATE OF MAINE is a Private Corporation.
What is a Corporation, an Artificially created Individual. I have a court case from a circuit court of the United States
from 1796 and it says, The United States of America is a Corporation and has authority over other Corporations or
artificial individuals.
If you do go to court you have to go yourself and not with a lawyer because he is the enemy.
That's as deep as I'll go on here. I don't want to get banned.
If anyone is interested PM me

Let's not derail the thread

 

[Grapeshot]

The thing I have a problem getting people to understand is the STATE OF MAINE is a Private Corporation.
What is a Corporation, an Artificially created Individual. I have a court case from a circuit court of the United States
from 1796 and it says, The United States of America is a Corporation and has authority over other Corporations or
artificial individuals.
If you do go to court you have to go yourself and not with a lawyer because he is the enemy.
That's as deep as I'll go on here. I don't want to get banned.
If anyone is interested PM me

Let's not derail the thread

Agreed and even hinting at banned conduct as being OK on PMs is a serious violation of the Forum Rules. The same rules apply there as on open forum.

 

[Mike]

Then how do you explain the BATFE creating regulations that carry the weight of law? How do you explain the FDA creating regulations and enforcing them?

I don't understand your point. The FDA and BATFE have been provided extensive power by Congress to enact regulations with the force of law. Regulations are valid law if they were promulgated pursuant to legislative direction to do so.

In Maine, the legislature has not empowered the capital security agency with the power to ban gun carry.

 

[boyscout399]

I don't understand your point. The FDA and BATFE have been provided extensive power by Congress to enact regulations with the force of law. Regulations are valid law if they were promulgated pursuant to legislative direction to do so.

In Maine, the legislature has not empowered the capital security agency with the power to ban gun carry.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/25/title25sec2904.html

There you go. Any public property is fair game for them to make rules on.

 

[Butch00]

And goes back to the same thing. If it violates the Constitution it is VOID.
Government was not given the authority to violate the Constitution.

 

[boyscout399]

And goes back to the same thing. If it violates the Constitution it is VOID.
Government was not given the authority to violate the Constitution.

It being void will not stop them from arresting you, charging you with it, getting a guilty verdict, and throwing you in jail. So what's the point in arguing about it being void? Like I said earlier. As long as theres cops enforcing, judges upholding, and jailers jailing you for it, then it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. Authority follows the ability and willingness to use force. Since the government has the ability and willingness to use force to enforce the provision, then they have the authority to do it. It's like saying a murderer can't murder because there's a document that says he can't. Government is no different from any other criminal in that regard. If they have the willingness and the ability, then it will be done.