Maine gun bill would allow concealed weapons without permit

[kevin9]

If Maine now requires you to inform police of your lawful conduct, it's worse.

Except it does not appear to quite do that:

§ 2003-A. Duty to inform law enforcement
When an individual who is carrying a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of this chapter first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this State or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment or routine traffic stop, that individual shall immediately inform that law enforcement officer of the fact that the individual is carrying a concealed handgun.

As I read this, the duty to inform only applies if one is carrying without a permit, something one cannot do now. No additional requirements are placed on currently lawful conduct, CCW'ing with a permit. Formerly unlawful conduct will now be allowed, with the constraint of being required to inform. Not perfect, but definitely good enough for this round.

 

[RImike]

What qualifies as a "routine traffic stop" and how would one know if it wasn't routine? Do you have to ask the LEO first if is routine, and his response would dictate how you respond?

 

[PatMcD]

You guys are looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Summary for idiots:
If this gets signed into law, anybody who can legally own a firearm can also legally carry a pistol concealed without the need for a permit.

It will reacquire you to inform a cop that you are carrying concealed if you are pulled over for a traffic stop. As this is unconstitutional, most think it can be peeled off at a later date.
It also will allow only persons 21 or older be able to carry concealed. Also seen as unconstitutional and repeal-able.


The big thing is Constitutional Carry will probably be passed! Anybody who thinks the law will be a net negative is either a moron or is full of sour grapes.

 

[dgrafton]

It seems that not informing an officer is also just a civil infraction with a fine UP TO $100. That is a smaller punishment than some traffic tickets.

 

[45collector]

I just received my first ME non-resident carry permit less than a year ago.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I just received my first ME non-resident carry permit less than a year ago.

And they just cashed my check for my renewal. I'm OK with that on two fronts.

- Likely a new law won't take effect for xx days, meaning Fall at least. If I go to Maine, I'm more likely to go this Summer than this Fall, so I would still need the permit.
- Someone posted that notification on contact with LE is only required if you are CCW'g without a permit. Don't know if that is true, but if so, with a new permit I'd be GTG for 4 more years without notification in the odd circumstance where I had "official contact" with LE in ME. [I'm not a fan of notification and if the LEO you notify is a MA transplant or skittish about commoners carrying things could go very badly.]

 

[Hoover]

You guys are looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Summary for idiots:
If this gets signed into law, anybody who can legally own a firearm can also legally carry a pistol concealed without the need for a permit.

It will reacquire you to inform a cop that you are carrying concealed if you are pulled over for a traffic stop. As this is unconstitutional, most think it can be peeled off at a later date.
It also will allow only persons 21 or older be able to carry concealed. Also seen as unconstitutional and repeal-able.


The big thing is Constitutional Carry will probably be passed! Anybody who thinks the law will be a net negative is either a moron or is full of sour grapes.

I'm not sure a court would find it unconstitutional. Alaska has a duty to inform as part of their constitutional carry. I don't know if it has been challenged in court.

 

[jujutsuka]

And they just cashed my check for my renewal. I'm OK with that on two fronts.

- Likely a new law won't take effect for xx days, meaning Fall at least. If I go to Maine, I'm more likely to go this Summer than this Fall, so I would still need the permit.
- Someone posted that notification on contact with LE is only required if you are CCW'g without a permit. Don't know if that is true, but if so, with a new permit I'd be GTG for 4 more years without notification in the odd circumstance where I had "official contact" with LE in ME. [I'm not a fan of notification and if the LEO you notify is a MA transplant or skittish about commoners carrying things could go very badly.]

Yep, just received mine last week. Don't regret it at all. I'll be in Maine at least twice this Summer.

 

[soloman02]

And they just cashed my check for my renewal. I'm OK with that on two fronts.

- Likely a new law won't take effect for xx days, meaning Fall at least. If I go to Maine, I'm more likely to go this Summer than this Fall, so I would still need the permit.
- Someone posted that notification on contact with LE is only required if you are CCW'g without a permit. Don't know if that is true, but if so, with a new permit I'd be GTG for 4 more years without notification in the odd circumstance where I had "official contact" with LE in ME. [I'm not a fan of notification and if the LEO you notify is a MA transplant or skittish about commoners carrying things could go very badly.]

I'm not even sure it applies to people carrying without a permit.

§ 2003-A. Duty to inform law enforcement
When an individual who is carrying a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of this chapter first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this State or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment or routine traffic stop, that individual shall immediately inform that law enforcement officer of the fact that the individual is carrying a concealed handgun.

Here is the chapter this section is being added to:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/25/title25sec2003.html

However, the carry bill does not modify chapter 2003 which deals with concealed carry permits. This is the bill:

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §11212, sub-§1, ¶B, as amended by PL 2005, c. 477, §9, is further amended to read:

B. A person may not, while in or on a motor vehicle or in or on a trailer or other type of vehicle being hauled by a motor vehicle, have a cocked and armed crossbow or a firearm with a cartridge or shell in the chamber or in an attached magazine, clip or cylinder or a muzzle-loading firearm charged with powder, lead and a primed ignition device or mechanism, except that a person who [STRIKE=has a valid Maine permit to carry a concealed weapon]has a valid Maine permit to carry a concealed weapon[/STRIKE] is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm may have in or on a motor vehicle or trailer or other type of vehicle a loaded pistol or revolver [STRIKE=covered by that permit.]covered by that permit[/STRIKE].

Sec. 2. 25 MRSA §2001-A, sub-§2, ¶A-1 is enacted to read:

A-1. A handgun carried by a person who is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm

Now I admit my reading of Maine law is novice level as they phrase and orient things differently from NH law but my understanding is that this duty to inform amendment only applies to permit holders.

 

[kevin9]

I take back what I posted before.

§ 2003-A. Duty to inform law enforcement
When an individual who is carrying a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of this chapter first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this State or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment or routine traffic stop, that individual shall immediately inform that law enforcement officer of the fact that the individual is carrying a concealed handgun.

"This chapter" appears to refer to Chapter 252 which contains the section modified by the law to allow constitutional carry (§2001-A) and the section providing for permits (§2003). Therefore the duty to inform does apply when one is carrying concealed, with or without a permit. [sad2]

What's interesting is the section being changed to allow constitutional carry in vehicles (§11212) is in Chapter 912, not 252. That brings up the question as to whether one would have a duty to inform if one is carrying in a vehicle???

 

[soloman02]

I take back what I posted before.
"This chapter" appears to refer to Chapter 252 which contains the section modified by the law to allow constitutional carry (§2001-A) and the section providing for permits (§2003). Therefore the duty to inform does apply when one is carrying concealed, with or without a permit. [sad2]

What's interesting is the section being changed to allow constitutional carry in vehicles (§11212) is in Chapter 912, not 252. That brings up the question as to whether one would have a duty to inform if one is carrying in a vehicle???

Ah. I missed that. Damn. Oh well.

 

[Bonesinium]

What's worse: informing police of your lawful conduct, or having to acquire a permit for that same lawful conduct?

FYI: I'm on the record as not favoring the amendment.

Both are garbage. Neither are good in any capacity, but I'd say forcing someone to give up one right in order to exercise another is worse.


I stand by my statement. If Maine is a duty to inform state now, it is worse.

This is the sort of stuff that happens as a result of cops knowing someone is conceal carrying lawfully, which would be REQUIRED with a duty to inform. As opposed to not happening when they don't know, which tends to be the case when you don't tell them. These situations are one of the reasons some people don't like to open carry.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...as-weapon-disassembled-by-Coral-Gables-Police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oISJCDCGrI

 

[Garys]

I don't know who Sen. Rosen of Hancock is, but he has asked that the bill be tabled until later today for further consideration. Could this be a last ditch effort to kill it in the Senate?

You guys are looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Summary for idiots:
If this gets signed into law, anybody who can legally own a firearm can also legally carry a pistol concealed without the need for a permit.

It will reacquire you to inform a cop that you are carrying concealed if you are pulled over for a traffic stop. As this is unconstitutional, most think it can be peeled off at a later date.
It also will allow only persons 21 or older be able to carry concealed. Also seen as unconstitutional and repeal-able.


The big thing is Constitutional Carry will probably be passed! Anybody who thinks the law will be a net negative is either a moron or is full of sour grapes.

 

[MarkT]

Both are garbage. Neither are good in any capacity, but I'd say forcing someone to give up one right in order to exercise another is worse.


I stand by my statement. If Maine is a duty to inform state now, it is worse.

This is the sort of stuff that happens as a result of cops knowing someone is conceal carrying lawfully, which would be REQUIRED with a duty to inform. As opposed to not happening when they don't know, which tends to be the case when you don't tell them. These situations are one of the reasons some people don't like to open carry.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...as-weapon-disassembled-by-Coral-Gables-Police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oISJCDCGrI

You have some valid points, but in my opinion, it is better. Much better.


I live in Mass and have to pay $100 for my LTC. I live near the NH border, so I also need a permit for NH. That’s another $100.


I only visit Maine 2 to 3 times a year, so I’ve never found it worth the cost and hassle to get a permit for Maine. Once this becomes law, I won’t need to worry about it.

 

[willbdavis]

You have some valid points, but in my opinion, it is better. Much better.


I live in Mass and have to pay $100 for my LTC. I live near the NH border, so I also need a permit for NH. That’s another $100.


I only visit Maine 2 to 3 times a year, so I’ve never found it worth the cost and hassle to get a permit for Maine. Once this becomes law, I won’t need to worry about it.

I'm with you on this. A big step forward. I live in MA and go to Vermont, NH and Maine on a regular basis. One less state to worry about maintaining a license for.

 

[PatMcD]

Now I hear the biggest hurdle might be our pro-gun Governor. He might not sign it if those amendments aren't taken out. Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you ask me.

On the plus side, he doesn't have to sign it for it to become law. If it sits there on his desk with no action, it automatically becomes law in 90 days.

 

[RImike]

Now I hear the biggest hurdle might be our pro-gun Governor. He might not sign it if those amendments aren't taken out. Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you ask me.

On the plus side, he doesn't have to sign it for it to become law. If it sits there on his desk with no action, it automatically becomes law in 90 days.

Doesn't ME have line item veto?

 

[Hoover]

Doesn't ME have line item veto?

I think that is a budget thing.

 

[Garys]

Now I hear the biggest hurdle might be our pro-gun Governor. He might not sign it if those amendments aren't taken out. Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you ask me.

What's his NES screen name?

 

[Asaltweapon]

LePage who I happen to like will not sign the bill due to the 21 year old age restriction. He says you can go to war at 18 so you should be able to carry.

I don't know about other states but being 21 or older has been a hurdle for a lot of things for a very long time.

 

[jujutsuka]

LePage who I happen to like will not sign the bill due to the 21 year old age restriction. He says you can go to war at 18 so you should be able to carry.

I don't know about other states but being 21 or older has been a hurdle for a lot of things for a very long time.

Though I agree with him 100%, that's unfortunate. The bill is a big step forward. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water...

 

[Asaltweapon]

I failed to add that the (rather lame) Maine Gun Owners Asso sent a letter stating they did not support the bill. What do they have? All of 10 members

My gun and outdoor sport money support goes to SAM for good reason.

 

[Hoover]

What he says now isn't necessarily what he'll do. This is still the negotiating phase, he's lobbying to get the best bill possible. He can't make changes, only sign it (not sign it and allow it to become law) or veto it. Right now is when he can pish for a better bill. It happens all the time, it all states and DC.

I'm sure obama admin said they would veto the bill allowing carry in federal parks but it was tacked on a big bill which he needed to sign and did. Governors and POTUS have limited influence on law making, their power is administrative.

 

[RYJ]

I don't know who Sen. Rosen of Hancock is, but he has asked that the bill be tabled until later today for further consideration. Could this be a last ditch effort to kill it in the Senate?

Rosen is a cosponsor for the Bill and was on the committee and voted to pass. My guess is trying to sqaush amendments

 

[RYJ]

I think it passed and was engrossed by senate today. last tweet about it...
UF-36, LD 652, AUTH CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS W/O A PERMIT, PASS TO BE ENGROSSED AS AMEND, Speaking: Sen. Mason

Does it go back to house for enactment now?

 

[Hoover]

From a Maine paper at 9pm. http://www.sunjournal.com/news/main...guns-without-permits-amended-veterans/1718655

SCOTT THISTLE, State Politics Editor

Maine | Wednesday, June 3, 2015 at 8:52 pm

AUGUSTA — The Maine Senate, without debate, Wednesday amended a bill that allows adults 21 years old or older to carry concealed handguns without permits. The amendments ensure veterans and active-duty military members who are at least 18 would also be able to pack heat.

The bill, LD 652, sponsored by state Sen. Eric Brakey, R-Auburn, has ricocheted between the Maine House and Senate three times over the past two weeks.

Lawmakers in the House, where Democrats hold the majority, are expected to vote on the bill with its new amendments Thursday, when it's possible some Democrats, concerned about the bill's possible impact on public safety, will attempt additional amendments.

Current law requires those wishing to carry concealed handguns to obtain permits from state or local law enforcement or local town officials. The permit requires a criminal background check and an in-state check of an individual's mental health records.

Maine's permit law also requires applicants to provide proof of handgun-safety training and allows for discretion by the issuing agency or officer as to whether the applicant possesses an upstanding "moral character."

The Senate amendment added Wednesday appears to be in response to a complaint about the measure from Republican Gov. Paul LePage who said Tuesday he wouldn't sign it into law without a provision exempting younger service members and veterans.

Adrienne Bennett, LePage's press secretary, said the governor proposed the amendment to lawmakers after he told a talk radio show he didn't think it was right to exclude those who were old enough to risk their lives serving in the military but were not 21.

Monday, the bill passed the House on an 83-62 vote, with 13 Democrats and two independent lawmakers joining the Republican minority on the bill. Democrats amended it with the age restriction of 21.

The bill was further amended in the House on Monday to require anybody carrying a concealed handgun to disclose to police that they had a weapon on them, when stopped or interacting with police, whether or not the officer asked them about it.

The House votes Monday followed a 21-14 vote in the state Senate in late May that removed the permit requirement.
The disclosure provision gave conservatives heartburn and Senate Republicans on Wednesday amended that language to exempt those with concealed handgun permits from the disclosure provision.

The bill, as it is now structured, allows any person over the age of 21 who is not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm under state or federal law to carry a concealed handgun in Maine without a permit.

While advocates for the change call it "constitutional carry" in reference to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to Article 1, Section 16 of the Maine Constitution, opponents note that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled state laws requiring permits for firearms are constitutional.

The House had intended to vote on the Senate's amendments to the bill Wednesday, but a technical problem with the computer and printing system in the Legislature that produces the actual documents the House needed for the votes delayed that vote until Thursday.

Brakey said he remained optimistic that the bill, in its current form, would win LePage's signature. Its passage into law would be a major victory for the first-term state senator who said he didn't want to say too much about the measure until after the House took its final votes on the bill.

"I think we've got the legislation to a place where the House, Senate and governor are now all comfortable with it, and I look forward to seeing it move forward to be signed by Gov. LePage," Brakey said late Wednesday.

 

[soloman02]

I think it passed and was engrossed by senate today. last tweet about it...
UF-36, LD 652, AUTH CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS W/O A PERMIT, PASS TO BE ENGROSSED AS AMEND, Speaking: Sen. Mason

Does it go back to house for enactment now?

Here is the latest update on the website:

PASSED TO BE ENGROSSED AS AMENDED BY Committee Amendment "A" (S-119) AS AMENDED BY Senate Amendment "B" (S-153) and Senate Amendment "C" (S-174) AND Senate Amendment "D" (S-175) thereto , in NON-CONCURRENCE.
Ordered sent down forthwith for concurrence.

Senate Amendment "C" (S-174) and Senate Amendment "D" (S-175) are amendments to the bill the house passed yesterday. They are as follows:

Senate Amendment "C" (S-174):

Amend the amendment by inserting after the first paragraph after the title the following:

‘Sec. 3. 25 MRSA §2003-A is enacted to read:

§ 2003-A. Duty to inform law enforcement

When an individual who is carrying a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of this chapter and who does not have a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun that has been issued as provided in this chapter first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this State or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment or routine traffic stop, that individual shall immediately inform that law enforcement officer of the fact that the individual is carrying a concealed handgun.

Sec. 4. 25 MRSA §2004, sub-§5 is enacted to read:
5. Failure to inform law enforcement. A person who fails to comply with section 2003-A commits a civil violation for which a fine of not more than $100 may be adjudged.’

Amend the amendment by relettering or renumbering any nonconsecutive Part letter or section number to read consecutively.

SUMMARY

This amendment incorporates the provisions of House Amendment "A" to Committee Amendment "A" and provides that the duty of an individual to inform a law enforcement officer that the individual is carrying a concealed handgun applies only to an individual who does not have a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun that has been issued as provided in the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 25, chapter 252.

Senate Amendment "D" (S-175)

Amend the amendment by inserting after the title the following:
‘

Amend the bill in section 1 in paragraph B in the 3rd line from the end (page 1, line 9 in L.D.) by inserting after the following: " weapon" the following: ' is 21 years of age or older and'

Amend the bill in section 1 in paragraph B in the 3rd line from the end (page 1, line 9 in L.D.) by inserting after the following: " a firearm" the following: ' or is 18 years of age or older and under 21 years of age and is on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm'

Amend the bill in section 2 in paragraph A-1 in the first line (page 1, line 13 in L.D.) by inserting after the following: " person who" the following: ' is 21 years of age or older and'

Amend the bill in section 2 in paragraph A-1 in the last line (page 1, line 14 in L.D.) by inserting after the following: " firearm" the following: ' or is 18 years of age or older and under 21 years of age and is on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm'
’

SUMMARY

Under the bill, a person who is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm may carry a concealed handgun without a permit. This amendment incorporates the provisions of House Amendment "B" to Committee Amendment "A" and provides that a person who is 18 years of age or older and under 21 years of age and is on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm may carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

So the senate amended the amendments the house added. I looked at the vote numbers in the roll call in the house, almost all the republicans voted for the OTP motion with 15 democrats voting with them but almost none of the republicans voted for the two house amendments implying that they were intended to be "poison pill" amendments by the dems.

However, the senate seems to really want this bill so they amended the house amendments. One to placate the governor (age limit) and the other to limit the "damage" from the duty to inform by making it only apply to those without a permit.

So now the bill goes back to the house for them to concur with (or not).

 

[robjax]

The problem with Republicans is they do not know how to fight the fight.

"The Senate amendment added Wednesday appears to be in response to a complaint about the measure from Republican Gov. Paul LePage who said Tuesday he wouldn't sign it into law without a provision exempting younger service members and veterans."

Leave out the 18 year old provision and get the bill signed into law. Then work on getting the 18 year old provision for military members. It's called baby steps or :"incremental freedom". Republicans want all or nothing. You win the little battles and over time you win the war.

Cripes. the democrats have been incrementally implementing gun control for decades. Republicans still haven't learned how the game is played.

As a side note- IMHO - If one is old enough to be able to go to war and stop a bullet I think he or she are old enough to enjoy a their libation of choice as well. Just my opinion.

 

[RYJ]

The House is currently voting to recede LD652 and add mandatory training Amendment

 

[jujutsuka]

And the death spiral begins.