I see I posted at nearly the same time as Grundi, so I may go over some of the same points again as a reply.
Just so you know, I agree with you concerning the duty to inform; I oppose it but, as a Maine resident, will accept that part in order to get permitless conceal carry. The political climate in Maine s not such that we'll get everything all at once.
On one hand I agree with you. On the other I see a governor willing to sign a permitless carry bill and a legislature that is willing to compromise. These legislators know that not getting a permitless carry bill this session is going to disappoint some voters. I'd say push them a bit harder so that Maine gets a good law from the start. A duty to inform guts the permitless carry law, don't accept it and let them know you won't accept it.
And, unfortunately, ALL LAWS are enforceable and constitutional until they're challenged in court; there, they can be challenged and overturned.
Yes, all laws are enforceable until ruled otherwise. However, not all laws are constitutional, they are presumptively constitutional. If laws were constitutional from the time enacted then every law is in effect an amendment to the constitution. A duty to inform is not constitutional as it violates the right to remain silent. Why can I say that? Because I can read the Constitution. No lawyer in a robe is going to tell me otherwise.
The sticky word in this whole mess is ...immediately... However, the legal precedence set by the court is that "immediately" means the next action after ascertain of conditions, circumstances, or situations. So, "immediate" doesn't legally mean "instantaneously", but it also doesn't mean "within a reasonable time". It falls somewhere in between. So, in your example above, the LAC did inform the LEO immediately after confirming the detainment. The amendment would have been better, if instead of "immediately", it read "promptly", but the politicos wanted to impress some urgency.
Yes, the LAC did inform the officer immediately. The problem is that with this law we have ignorant officers that are out to enforce the law, not keep the peace. (When did we lose the term "peace officer" anyway? Might be an improvement if we went back to that, BTW.) So, we have bad law, ignorant officers, law abiding citizens colliding to clog up the courts from gun grabbing legislators trying to make the state budget look better from loss of concealed carry permit revenue. Maybe the fines will make up for the loss.
Again, and again...very unfortunately...the ones whose must overturn it will also bear the cost of walking it up through the court system. Until then, it's legal, constitutional, and fully enforceable.
It is not legal, not constitutional, and enforceable only until someone takes the state to court over it. Is that what you really want for Maine?
I used to think that this law would be a minor win for Maine but NavyLCDR is starting to convince me it would be a loss. It looks like it was only by a small margin of votes that Maine didn't end up with a duty to inform for even those with a permit to carry concealed handguns.
I've been told several times now that Maine should embrace this bill, get it passed, and come back next year to remove the duty to inform. I say, and I think NavyLCDR would agree, that it is equally likely that in the next session the duty to inform could be imposed on everyone that chooses to carry a concealed weapon.
Don't put duty to inform on the books. You have wins already with universal reciprocity, lawful possession of suppressors, a governor that has stated a willingness to sign permitless carry, and a legislature seriously discussing it. Don't let duty to inform pass even if that means not getting permitless concealed carry this year. I know that perfect can be the enemy of the good but duty to inform is not good.