• 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.

The end of open carry in Maine!!

Marcus92183

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
68
Location
saco, Maine, United States
STOP LD 380 NOW

An Attempt to Ban Open Carry in Maine

"An Act To Clarify the Law Concerning the Threatening Display of Dangerous Weapons"

SUMMARY: This bill amends the law regarding threatening display or carrying of a dangerous weapon by clarifying that "display in a threatening manner" includes to display a dangerous or deadly weapon in a public place in a way that causes a reasonable person to suffer intimidation or alarm.

1. Display or carrying prohibited. A person may not, unless excepted by a provision of law:

A. Display in a... threatening manner a firearm, slungshot, knuckles, bowie knife, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous or deadly weapon usually employed in the attack on or defense of a person . For purposes of this paragraph, "display in a threatening manner" includes to display in a public place in a manner that causes a reasonable person to suffer intimidation or alarm; or

B. Wear under the person's clothes or conceal about the person's person a firearm, slungshot, knuckles, bowie knife, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous or deadly weapon usually employed in the attack on or defense of a person.

LINK TO BILL:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/billtexts/HP025501.asp

PLEASE CALL THESE LEGISLATORS IMMEDIATELY
Presented by Representative GATTINE of Westbrook ( 207-409-3477) dgattine@aol.com

Cosponsored by Senator HASKELL of Cumberland NO CONTACT INFO LISTED

DICKERSON of Rockland Cell phone ( 207-317-7565 ) Home phone ( 207-596-0028 )

FARNSWORTH of Portland Cell Phone: ( 207-233-3814 ) Home Telephone: ( 207-874-6399 ) Home E-Mail: omc@maine.rr.com

GIDEON of Freeport Cell Phone: ( 207-865-9593) State House E-Mail: RepSara.Gideon@legislature.maine.gov

PEOPLES of Westbrook Home Telephone: (207) 856-7264 Business Telephone: (207) 287-1400 Cell Phone: (207) 671-0392

RUSSELL of Portland Cell Phone: (207) 272-9182 State House E-Mail: RepDiane.Russell@legislature.maine.gov



contact all of the above and your local reps to ensure we stop this bill. also contact Governor lepage to make sure he puts an end to this if it crosses his desk!!
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
659
Location
Renton, Wa
Washington State has a statute almost identical to this. We have case law that says that a properly holstered and visible firearm doesn't qualify as warranting alarm. As far as Maine goes, this legislation shouldn't be used to make OC illegal, but I can see a court case to clarify if a properly holstered firearm qualifies as warranting alarm.
 

Marcus92183

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
68
Location
saco, Maine, United States
Yeah but a law like that will certainly be used to take someone for a ride.....

What does the current brandishing law say?
it "clarifies" what is threatening it just adds the line

to display a dangerous or deadly weapon in a public place in a way that causes a reasonable person to suffer intimidation or alarm.

now if someone gets excited because we are open carrying the police might actually have something to cite you for and this could go either way in a courtroom.
if they would add something about a holstered weapon openly displayed is not enough to be considered threatening that would be "clarified". I think alot of officers and judges will side on the argument that people are not used to seeing firearms displayed in public so when they saw an open carried weapon it was reasonable to feel threatened and then we are criminals.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Washington State has a statute almost identical to this. We have case law that says that a properly holstered and visible firearm doesn't qualify as warranting alarm. As far as Maine goes, this legislation shouldn't be used to make OC illegal, but I can see a court case to clarify if a properly holstered firearm qualifies as warranting alarm.
Actually Acmariner, this is not like RCW 9.41.270. the operative word in our law is "warrants"


RCW 9.41.270
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
This is the bill in Maine we're discussing

A. Display in a... threatening manner a firearm, slungshot, knuckles, bowie knife, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous or deadly weapon usually employed in the attack on or defense of a person . For purposes of this paragraph, "display in a threatening manner" includes to display in a public place in a manner that causes a reasonable person to suffer intimidation or alarm
Cause is different then "warrant"

remember pickle girl
[video=youtube;Hn_BjXzLY1k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn_BjXzLY1k[/video]

Pickles CAUSE her alarm.... but they don't WARRANT alarm. If all it takes is to "cause" someone alarm then this comes closer to actually banning OC in most cases, they're at the mercy of what a court will consider a "reasonable person" and that is very judge dependent....
 

tattedupboy

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
518
Location
Gary, Indiana, USA
unless it does away with concealed pistol licenses I don't see how that would be...
Since when has that ever stopped a determined anti? I don't see any good coming from the passage of this bill, for both open carriers and concealed carriers.

Sent from my Acer Iconia A200 tab using Tapatalk HD
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
659
Location
Renton, Wa
Actually Acmariner, this is not like RCW 9.41.270. the operative word in our law is "warrants"
Not to argue semantics - but I did say ALMOST in my first comment. Furthermore, we have case law in Washington that specifically states that OC does not warrant alarm. So IMO, the wording is a moot point. Without clarification with what causes alarm in the proposed Maine statute, I can see people giving OCers a hard time. It would take a court case to decide if 'causing alarm' is equal or not to WA's definition of 'warranting alarm.' Another route would be to add an amendment that states a legally carried firearm does not qualify as causing alarm.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Not to argue semantics - but I did say ALMOST in my first comment. Furthermore, we have case law in Washington that specifically states that OC does not warrant alarm. So IMO, the wording is a moot point. Without clarification with what causes alarm in the proposed Maine statute, I can see people giving OCers a hard time. It would take a court case to decide if 'causing alarm' is equal or not to WA's definition of 'warranting alarm.' Another route would be to add an amendment that states a legally carried firearm does not qualify as causing alarm.
Though Maine is not in the 4th Circuit Court district, I think this recent decision will help. OC was found to not be RAS of criminal activity, no probable cause for search, seizure or detention. It is a good verdict.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf

http://http://www.fedagent.com/colu...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
 
Last edited:

tazxrulz

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
69
Location
Saco, ME
What is the Courts definition of a " Reasonable Person" ?

CCJ
I wondered that too..

Apr 22, 2013 Voted Divided Report
I take it divided report means half the people was on our side and half was on the bad guys side? What happens from here? Sorry for my ignorance as I have not been following the legal stuff for too long.
 

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
LD380 has made it through the committee today. I hope the legislature kills it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
maine has a bicameral legislature right? so it still has senate stuff to go to?

also what committee passed it? in my state house bills have to pass TWO committees generally to get on the floor (starting with the appropriate committee for the bill's subject then the rules committee...)

look it up and find out every possible step it can be killed.
 
Last edited:

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
maine has a bicameral legislature right? so it still has senate stuff to go to?

also what committee passed it? in my state house bills have to pass TWO committees generally to get on the floor (starting with the appropriate committee for the bill's subject then the rules committee...)

look it up and find out every possible step it can be killed.
Yessir we do. So there's still a chance it won't be voted into law.

I believe that all, or most of these "gun legislature" bills are going through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
 

tazxrulz

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
69
Location
Saco, ME
Someone was saying that this bill also makes it so police can stop and ID you if you are carrying.. Anyone else hear anything about this? I don't see it anywhere in the bills text.
 

RLTW!

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2012
Messages
13
Location
Portland
I'm a little late to the party, but here is an email exchange that I had with the author of LD 380. I will update it if I get another reply back.

p.s. I replaced an "off-topic" word with another word so as not to violate forum rules.

Me said:
Dear Rep. Gattine,

Only just recently I heard that the legislation you submitted (LD 380) was on account of me; a friend referred me to an article written by Mr. Todd Tolhurst in which you said the following:

“This bill arose out of a conversation I had with a former law enforcement official who expressed concern after the recent highly publicized incident in Portland regarding a person walking around with a rifle in some densely populated neighborhoods. He and I were in agreement that the alarm that this caused was legitimate in an urban area such as Portland where there are a high concentration of schools and a high density of persons who have obtained protection from abuse orders. We shared the concern that under current law there was no ability for law enforcement to approach or request identification from such persons.”


I have a few questions regarding your statement.

1. What crimes are you trying to prevent? And how will this bill make our streets safer? Pardon me, but I don't understand the connection between my actions and protection orders. Besides, if an individual wants to violate a protection order (or commit any crime, for that matter) the last thing they are going to do is open carry a BANANA -- it brings a lot of attention from the police and public, trust me!

2. Can you please list some crimes committed by a citizen open carrying a firearm (of any kind) in this state? There must have been many before I moved back to Maine because no legislator in their right mind would attempt to infringe on people's rights over emotions and hurt feelings.

3. Are you aware of how difficult it is to legally open carry in a city like Portland? As you may know the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 makes it a federal crime to carry a weapon (openly or concealed) "...within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school." You see, I had to do quite of bit of route planning to get where I had to go and back and not commit any crimes. (Granted, there is a way around this; the feds said they wont prosecute those who have a concealed carry permit for the state the act happens in.) Do you understand why it is frustrating to have burdensome laws (like the one you have proposed) that CREATE new "crimes" that make it more difficult for the law abiding gun owner? GFZA doesn't affect school shooters -- it affects me; similarly, your legislation won't lower crime or stop criminals, but it will certainly effect law abiding gun owners like me.

Lastly, what actions have you taken to ensure that our police officers in Maine are well trained marksmen? I am concerned by the dismal display of marksmanship by Massachusetts Police (during the Tsarnaev manhunt), as well as the LAPD shooting up the wrong vehicles during the Dorner manhunt -- not to mention the Empire State Building shooting last year where the NYPD shot 9 bystanders. What do you think we need to do in Maine to prevent that from happening to Mainers? If something similar happens here I'd like to know that the police wont be shooting up our neighborhoods.

Very Respectfully,
Rep. Drew Gattine said:
Mr. Dean,

1. The current draft of my bill (I'm not sure if you have read the amended draft which passed in Committee) adds definition to a current law that, in my opinion, is vague. I've talked to some in law enforcement who think under the current law your actions on December 24 are in violation of the current law. I think by better defining the current statute everyone is better served, including people exercising their open carry right.

2. I don't have that list. I'm not sure where you would find it.

3. I am aware of the Gun Free School Act. Again, LD380 does not create any "new crimes". The crime of Threatening Display of an Dangerous Weapon has existed in Maine for a long time.

4. I have never taken any action to ensure that police officers in Maine are trained marksmen. If you have any suggestions for new legislation on this subject please pass it along and I will consider it. I agree that it is important.

The current draft was voted "Ought to Pass" by the Criminal Justice Committee. It has not moved through the legislature yet.

Thanks. Drew

Me said:
Rep. Gattine,

Thank you for the timely response.

The most recent version of LD 380 I can find is dated February 12th; would that be the version that passed committee 7 to 5?

1. I can't help but notice that you didn't respond with a single crime that would be hindered in any way by your legislation, nor did you explain how it would make our streets safer -- I feel that's a pretty big omission considering it was submitted to the "Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety." Furthermore you didn't address my query regarding my connection to protection orders. You mention that some LEO's think that I committed a crime under current laws, but they do not know what they're talking about. Common law has dropped the hammer on LEO's who have thought the same. I believe case law adequately addresses a previous statement of yours: "We shared the concern that under current law there was no ability for law enforcement to approach or request identification from such persons."

United States v. Black
(http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf)

"In sum, Defendants had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John other than the fact that he was
lawfully carrying a weapon in a public place. Because New Mexico law allows individuals to
openly carry weapons in public—and Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion, create
tumult or endanger anyone's well-being—there were no articulable facts to indicate either
criminal activity or a threat to safety. Accordingly, Defendants' seizure of Mr. St. John violated
his Fourth Amendment rights."

Another relevant precedent is St. John v. McColley.

St. John v. McColley: (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nmd.172397/gov.uscourts.nmd.172397.48.0.pdf)

"Moreover, Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention. For example, in United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure. In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration. Holding that the search violated Ubiles’ Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers “that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason.”

"As discussed above, Defendants' detention of Mr. St. John was not a "valid investigatory detention." Defendants had no reason to suspect that Mr. St. John was involved in, or was about to become involved in, any criminal activity. Nor did they have any reason to believe that Mr. St. John posed a safety threat. Accordingly, Defendants' search of Mr. St. John was invalid. Additionally, Defendants lacked any reasonable suspicion for believing that Mr. St. John was armed and dangerous, as required by Tenth Circuit jurisprudence."

"The Tenth Circuit has also dealt with this question. In United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993) the Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.... Though the King court ultimately found that King’s detention was non-investigatory and could, thus, be justified under the officer’s community caretaker function while he advised King of the hazardous conditions that his honking created, the King rationale does not apply here because Defendants had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place."



Hopefully that is enough stare decsis! Please don't mistake me for someone who hates cops, I like cops; in fact in every interview I did with the media I said the Portland Police Dept. were awesome and professional, but the news media didn't think it was good enough to print in their dismal attempt at journalism. My issue is with those who want to infringe on my rights.

2. The reason there is no list for it is because it doesn't happen; it's a non-issue. There isn't a rash of crime by concealed carriers or open carriers in this state.. it's a non-issue.

3. And you are correct -- I misspoke when I said it made "new crimes." LD 380 just makes it much easier to arrest and charge an otherwise law-abiding citizen based on the phobias and "alarm."

Moving on..

You'll have to forgive me for thinking you might not be aware of the GFSZA of 1990; another quote from you led me to believe that might not be the case: "“It isn't my intent to do away with or criminalize open carry but I do think that the open display of a weapon in some circumstances, such as in a crowded urban environment or in the vicinity of a school or playground is a legitimate cause of concern and a definition that accounts for "time and place" will add clarity to the current law.”

You can see reading that one could potentially get the idea that you thought I carried near either of those places. I hope the first sentence of the St. John case excerpt assuages your concerns about "crowded urban environments" and brings you some clarity on the issue.

4. Finally -- I won't pretend that I have the knowledge to direct meaningful change across all the law enforcement across the state, and I'm not necessarily sure the solution would be legislation, or even that there is a deficiency at all. I just think it's important to look at other police mishaps and say "Hey, some other police departments have had serious deficiencies -- what can we learn from them? How prepared are we for such a scenario? Is there any way to adapt training so as to limit the risk of it happening in Maine?" It sounds to me like you have connections and can ask those questions, Representative Gattine.

(Please excuse my poor syntax, as I write this it approaches 1:30am and I'm not on my "A-game.")

Very Respectfully,
 
Last edited:
Top