• 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?

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
You a funny guy.....

Duty to inform is just the same, and just as dangerous as a Nazi SS demanding your papers!

Also,,, Folks have been legally carrying and legally refusing to present ID in the several States
for years...
In fact, Many! legal carriers make a Point of carrying Sterile,, no Id,,!!!!

We refuse to ID,, and It has worked out just fine,,
It has also expanded our 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights!
Actually I meant in context of the 3 instances where the new law defines the duty to inform. If you're carrying just walking down the street, then I agree - it's totalitarian to demand papers. But if you're stopped for a traffic violation or being arrested, the LEO will demand ID. If you refuse, you're in trouble.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
I predict that the duty to inform law will not change at all until such time as a court requires it to be repealed or changed. The argument in court would be, what public good does the law accomplish that would outweigh the 4th amendment infringement in that the state can require a person to pay a fine for doing nothing more than not informing a law enforcement officer that they were in lawful possession of a personal possession - or a person who is in unlawful possession of a gun gets fined for it and they argue that the duty to inform violates their 5th amendment rights by requiring them to immediately self-incriminate themselves.
We've been discussing how a court case might happen and I agree generally with your assessment. I don't believe anyone has put the proper legal lingo to this yet, what you are saying is that the law fails on every level of scrutiny. Every law must meet "rational basis", a level of scrutiny that basically says that a law must meet it's intended goal. I am not aware of any explicit mention of how the duty to inform is supposed to serve the public good then we are forced to contrive that goal on our own. Since this involves constitutionally protected rights then we get into the territory of "strict scrutiny" and "intermediate scrutiny". Like other recent Second Amendment cases I foresee a court ruling that there is no need to determine the level of scrutiny required since this law fails on every level.

I'm now convinced that the best plan of attack is to kill this bill before it can become law.

IA_farmboy and NavyLCDR, every one of your points are valid and could possibly happen...or they might not. Understanding that the onus and discretion falls on the LEOs and those LEOs are human, the only reply I can truly say is that Maine is not New Jersey, thank God!!!
You tell that to the person that got the short straw and ran into Officer Roid-Rage, I don't expect that to be much of a consolation.

If you think that the duty to inform is odious, you really won't like the other amendment that the gun grabbers added, which in my opinion is infinitely worse. If you're carrying legally, then the duty to inform is really no worse than having to give the LEO your driver's license in any of these situations. You try refusing a request for your ID, then let me know how that works out.
No, duty to inform is much worse. Having to provide ID on request allows a person to remain silent, keep their papers/effects secure, and still be in compliance with the law. The burden lies on the officer to ask. With duty to inform the burden lies on the law abiding citizen to speak before being asked to be in compliance.

I thought the argument for permitless concealed carry was that a person should not be thought a criminal for putting on a coat that happens to conceal their firearm. Does not a duty to inform imply that concealing a weapon is a criminal act?

The other amendment that I mentioned...if you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, (and you carry concealed pursuant to this section - ie without a permit) then they must provide you with a safety brochure and have you sign an acknowledgement of receiving the brochure. Can you say back-door state-level, gun registry?!? But everyone's focused on the duty to inform...
Good point. This bill needs to die.

The budget needs to be completely settled, then the Appropriations Committee can allocate monies to it from the General Fund, release it back to the Senate, then on to the Governor's desk. So until the budget is settled, we wait.
Yes, we wait.

Actually I meant in context of the 3 instances where the new law defines the duty to inform. If you're carrying just walking down the street, then I agree - it's totalitarian to demand papers. But if you're stopped for a traffic violation or being arrested, the LEO will demand ID. If you refuse, you're in trouble.
This comparison between guns and cars needs to die. First of all I do not believe that adults should need a license to drive. Every day is a driving exam and we have "instructors" all over the place to inform us when we've done something unsafe. Those people sitting at desks at the DOT license center are not keeping the public safe, law enforcement officers do that. One time I thought I'd search the web on how many unlicensed drivers there are in the USA, turns out no one can make so much as an educated guess. There is so little enforcement on licensing that some estimate that there are tens of millions driving without a license. It is not the license that keeps people safe, it is this inherent nature of humans to keep safe and treat others with respect. The lack of a license does not prevent poor drivers from driving, enforcement officers do that.

I sometimes wonder how many lives would be saved if we got rid of the license to drive and spent that money on law enforcement instead. Same goes for any firearm licensing/registration.

Secondly, there are two very important distinctions between cars and firearms. When we speak of vehicle insurance mandates, vehicle registration, and licensing to drive, this is all required to OPERATE the vehicle on public roads. None of these mandates would apply if I were CARRYING my vehicle, right? I don't need license, registration, and insurance to CARRY the vehicle, therefore I shouldn't need to do such to CARRY a firearm. Then someone would say, "But why would you carry a firearm other than to shoot it? We need these laws to make sure people can safely handle a firearm." That gets back to my first argument, we have the right to travel and we have the right to defend ourselves. With rights come responsibilities, failure to act responsibly should be punished and even then only when it harms others.

I realize that carrying a vehicle is ridiculous. It'd be so much easier to push it.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
What is happening at the state legislature level.

Is it still dangling, being argued, amended? Somewhere along the way, I've lost contact with the here and now of this......thread is too long to read right at this minute.
It's stuck on the appropriations table until a budget agreement is reached.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
We've been discussing how a court case might happen and I agree generally with your assessment. I don't believe anyone has put the proper legal lingo to this yet, what you are saying is that the law fails on every level of scrutiny. Every law must meet "rational basis", a level of scrutiny that basically says that a law must meet it's intended goal. I am not aware of any explicit mention of how the duty to inform is supposed to serve the public good then we are forced to contrive that goal on our own. Since this involves constitutionally protected rights then we get into the territory of "strict scrutiny" and "intermediate scrutiny". Like other recent Second Amendment cases I foresee a court ruling that there is no need to determine the level of scrutiny required since this law fails on every level.

I'm now convinced that the best plan of attack is to kill this bill before it can become law.


You tell that to the person that got the short straw and ran into Officer Roid-Rage, I don't expect that to be much of a consolation.


No, duty to inform is much worse. Having to provide ID on request allows a person to remain silent, keep their papers/effects secure, and still be in compliance with the law. The burden lies on the officer to ask. With duty to inform the burden lies on the law abiding citizen to speak before being asked to be in compliance.

I thought the argument for permitless concealed carry was that a person should not be thought a criminal for putting on a coat that happens to conceal their firearm. Does not a duty to inform imply that concealing a weapon is a criminal act?


Good point. This bill needs to die.


Yes, we wait.


This comparison between guns and cars needs to die. First of all I do not believe that adults should need a license to drive. Every day is a driving exam and we have "instructors" all over the place to inform us when we've done something unsafe. Those people sitting at desks at the DOT license center are not keeping the public safe, law enforcement officers do that. One time I thought I'd search the web on how many unlicensed drivers there are in the USA, turns out no one can make so much as an educated guess. There is so little enforcement on licensing that some estimate that there are tens of millions driving without a license. It is not the license that keeps people safe, it is this inherent nature of humans to keep safe and treat others with respect. The lack of a license does not prevent poor drivers from driving, enforcement officers do that.

I sometimes wonder how many lives would be saved if we got rid of the license to drive and spent that money on law enforcement instead. Same goes for any firearm licensing/registration.

Secondly, there are two very important distinctions between cars and firearms. When we speak of vehicle insurance mandates, vehicle registration, and licensing to drive, this is all required to OPERATE the vehicle on public roads. None of these mandates would apply if I were CARRYING my vehicle, right? I don't need license, registration, and insurance to CARRY the vehicle, therefore I shouldn't need to do such to CARRY a firearm. Then someone would say, "But why would you carry a firearm other than to shoot it? We need these laws to make sure people can safely handle a firearm." That gets back to my first argument, we have the right to travel and we have the right to defend ourselves. With rights come responsibilities, failure to act responsibly should be punished and even then only when it harms others.

I realize that carrying a vehicle is ridiculous. It'd be so much easier to push it.
What you're failing to acknowledge here is that we gave up NOTHING for this law. Maine citizens only gained. I could understand your sentiment more if they had snuck in a duty to inform in all situations (open with or without permit, concealed with permit, and concealed without permit)
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
In other words, it's OK to infringe upon Constitutional rights as long as it is not yours personally. Got it.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that no one gave up anything in this law. There is nothing that anyone lost in this law. Anyone can now do more than they could before.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Improvement, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Down Mainers see an improvement, it works for them and I see this as a success story.

We welcome OCers, CCers, and noCers to OCDO. We'd like everyone to help, but stepping in front of the train won't stop it either :)
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
In exchange to exercise the right to bear arms without a permit, the concession was that those exercising their right to carry a firearm under the conditions set forth in the Constitution of the United States must inform "immediately" a government employee (LEO) upon an official contact or face paying a fine to that same government. So, you are right - those that have recognized governmental permission to bear arms have lost nothing. Those that don't have recognized governmental permission have gained the ability to conceal a firearm - so long as they inform the government that they are doing so "immediately" upon an official contact. Oh well....this is an open carry forum and anyone with any common sense wouldn't be concealing their firearm in Maine anyway.
Well, before this law passed, anyone that wished to "exercise their right to carry a firearm under the conditions set forth in the Constitution" was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. whether they informed or not... Now they get a civil infraction with a $100 fine. Lost nothing, gained the ability to conceal without a permit... Any argument to the contrary is false.
 

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
Interesting rulings concerning the 4th amendment...

How about calling it an exchange of rights? Those that wish to conceal their firearm without a permit gained the 2nd Amendment right to do so in exchange for losing 4th Amendment protection against government seizure of personal assets for no other reason than not informing the government immediately that they are engaging in a lawful and Constitutionally protected activity.
Variation from a well know quote...you keep using that amendment, I don't think it means what you think it means...

Based on previous Supreme Court rulings concerning the 4th amendment, both 1 (arrest) and 3 (traffic stop) interactions with LEOs are already settled law - you must ID yourself, the Courts granting implicitly "search" to the LEOs, raise suspicion by action or circumstance and the Courts allow considerable leeway for further invasion against your privacy; only 2 (detainment) is a bit gray in that the SC is still defining what is an allowable detainment.

What would be interesting is for someone to violate situation 2, be fined (creating "standing"), and challenge it in the courts. It seems like it would be precedence setting for both the 2nd and 4th amendments. I would guess that several associations would be willing to help walk this up through the court system.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
How about calling it an exchange of rights? Those that wish to conceal their firearm without a permit gained the 2nd Amendment right to do so in exchange for losing 4th Amendment protection against government seizure of personal assets for no other reason than not informing the government immediately that they are engaging in a lawful and Constitutionally protected activity.
No exchange, only gain. Those that wished to conceal their firearms without a permit before could also do so in exchange for losing their 4th amendment protection against seizure, only now, instead of seizing their gun and their person in jail, now they only seize $100.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
Variation from a well know quote...you keep using that amendment, I don't think it means what you think it means...

Based on previous Supreme Court rulings concerning the 4th amendment, both 1 (arrest) and 3 (traffic stop) interactions with LEOs are already settled law - you must ID yourself, the Courts granting implicitly "search" to the LEOs, raise suspicion by action or circumstance and the Courts allow considerable leeway for further invasion against your privacy; only 2 (detainment) is a bit gray in that the SC is still defining what is an allowable detainment.

What would be interesting is for someone to violate situation 2, be fined (creating "standing"), and challenge it in the courts. It seems like it would be precedence setting for both the 2nd and 4th amendments. I would guess that several associations would be willing to help walk this up through the court system.
Cite.

Suspicion is not reason enough for detainment or invasion into "privacy".

Basing things on how the Supreme court has already ruined these rights is not rationale for more infringements.
 

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
Not Gonna Like What The SCOTUS Has Already Determined...

Cite.

Suspicion is not reason enough for detainment or invasion into "privacy".

Basing things on how the Supreme court has already ruined these rights is not rationale for more infringements.
Actually, I was bringing to light how the SC has already afforded LEOs considerable leeway into our privacy. Where you think you might be protected by the 4th and 5th amendment, you very well may not be protected. Searching out the specifics of these "leeways" is quite surprising. I've googled some court cases and have copy/pasted them from various sources but the following is a matter of public record. Although we would call them a violation of the 4th amendment (and several lower courts agree), the SC (Supreme Court of the USA) allowed these violations. These precedent setting cases could be reversed over time but are currently stakes in the ground against us.

In Sitz v. Michigan Dept of State Police, the Supreme Court ruled that the potential benefit to society of removing impaired drivers from the roads justified the violation of Fourth Amendment rights caused by sobriety checkpoints. This type of detainment could become a "Terry Stop" (Terry v. Ohio) if it gives the LEO reasonable suspicion. Of course, you could always use the "dui window kit", but the very act of putting your license and insurance card in a bag and hanging on your window conveys to the LEO that your sober enough to accomplish fine-motor tasks.

In the People of the State of Illinois v. Robert Lidster, the SC allowed LEOs to set up information-seeking checkpoints, construing them to be constitutional. These are considered "legal detainments" for the purpose of soliciting and obtaining information in the course of investigating a crime in which a man was killed.

In South Dakota v. Neville, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DUI suspects have no right to refuse a breath test. Breathalyzers can provide highly incriminating evidence in DUI cases, but, because of the Supreme Court's ruling, DUI suspects are required to submit. In fact, refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test is, in and of itself, admissible evidence after the suspect; a clear violation of the 5th amendment, but allowable by the SC.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the SC held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, nor, in the circumstances of that case, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
Actually, I was bringing to light how the SC has already afforded LEOs considerable leeway into our privacy. Where you think you might be protected by the 4th and 5th amendment, you very well may not be protected. Searching out the specifics of these "leeways" is quite surprising. I've googled some court cases and have copy/pasted them from various sources but the following is a matter of public record. Although we would call them a violation of the 4th amendment (and several lower courts agree), the SC (Supreme Court of the USA) allowed these violations. These precedent setting cases could be reversed over time but are currently stakes in the ground against us.

In Sitz v. Michigan Dept of State Police, the Supreme Court ruled that the potential benefit to society of removing impaired drivers from the roads justified the violation of Fourth Amendment rights caused by sobriety checkpoints. This type of detainment could become a "Terry Stop" (Terry v. Ohio) if it gives the LEO reasonable suspicion. Of course, you could always use the "dui window kit", but the very act of putting your license and insurance card in a bag and hanging on your window conveys to the LEO that your sober enough to accomplish fine-motor tasks.

In the People of the State of Illinois v. Robert Lidster, the SC allowed LEOs to set up information-seeking checkpoints, construing them to be constitutional. These are considered "legal detainments" for the purpose of soliciting and obtaining information in the course of investigating a crime in which a man was killed.

In South Dakota v. Neville, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DUI suspects have no right to refuse a breath test. Breathalyzers can provide highly incriminating evidence in DUI cases, but, because of the Supreme Court's ruling, DUI suspects are required to submit. In fact, refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test is, in and of itself, admissible evidence after the suspect; a clear violation of the 5th amendment, but allowable by the SC.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the SC held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, nor, in the circumstances of that case, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination.
Thank you for the cites. Much appreciated.

Yes they have watered down the rights.

In Washington most those cases do not apply, our courts have ruled road checkpoints unconstitutional. We also are not a supply ID state.
 

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
The Wait Is OVER!!! Maine goes Constitutional Carry!!!

Yes, we wait.
As of this morning, the Appropriations Committee has agree to "fund" Maine LD652 and sent it back to the Senate. Senate gave final approval to enact this bill; on to the Governor.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,261
Location
northern wis
More info

http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/07/me-constitutional-carry-bill-goes-to.html


LD 652/SP 245, known as the constitutional carry bill, has been passed out of the special appropriations table, been approved of in the Senate (again) by a 23 to 12 vote, and will now go to Governor Paul Le Page for signature or veto. It does not appear that the legislature will be in session for three consecutive days in July, so if Governor Le Page does not sign the bill, it will not become law.

Governor Le Page said that he would not sign the bill if it required Maine residents under the age of 21, on active duty, to obtain a concealed carry permit to carry concealed arms. The bill did not require a permit for people who could legally own a firearm, who were 21 or older. The bill was modified to meet Governor Le Page's objections.

It is widely believed that the Governor will sign the bill into law. He will have 10 days, not counting Sundays, to do so.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Signed by governor.

The right to carry concealed is now recognized. Admins should also make it a gold star and green ( for constitutional carry) state.
 
Top