Proper Transport while in Maine

[n1bsbri]

I don't know how this could be any more clear. This is the language from the statute that was passed:

Summary of Public Law 2015, Chapter 327 (127th Legis., LD 652)

Concealed carry without a permit is limited to people who are 21 or older,
with the following exception: If a person is 18 years of age or older, and is
on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States or the National
Guard, or has been honorably discharged from the Armed Forces or the
National Guard, and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm, the
person may carry a concealed handgun. A person who is 18-20 years old
and without the referenced military qualifications must have a permit to
carry concealed. The law applies to both residents of Maine and nonresidents.

 

[m9guy]

Yes, hello...




I know you're new here, so I will clue you in. DO NOT EVER SOLICIT OR TAKE LEGAL ADVISE FROM COPS! They are wrong more often than even the average libtard idiot you will find on the street.

I am a former Police Officer. And it would be folly to think that just because a member is new "here" that they are new to things posted here.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know how this could be any more clear. This is the language from the statute that was passed:

Summary of Public Law 2015, Chapter 327 (127th Legis., LD 652)

That was not the only information on the page or in statutes. Thank you for pointing out what was already posted by other.

 

[m9guy]

I would like to thank those who addressed what I posted. I am glad input and feedback was pretty quick here. I hope people read that any issues have been cleared up though. LOL The problem with situations like this is that what is "perfectly clear" when taken out of totality can often times not be when viewed in the whole. The State Police's own website had contradictory information and links on it. And even their own employees gave incorrect information. And no amount of "cops don't give out the correct information" will keep the cuffs off of you and potential weapons charges should even an ignorant police officer arrest you. It can be cleared up later, but it is still a pain in the rear. So that is one of the reasons I err on the side of caution.

I am glad that in fact, things are what they are though. And again, I thank folks for posting.

 

[n1bsbri]

The only thing that counts is the statute. Cops have always and forever interpreted wrong, mostly to further some agenda either they personally, or their department has, or they're just stupid. I'm sure you were a perfect cop who never got it wrong though.

Unfortunately as you point out, cops have the authority and societal blessing to slap cuffs on you and enact whatever roadside justice they want. If they are not total idiots, they can explain their way out of anything. I'm not sure what the practical remedies for this are, other than just don't carry a gun, or do anything else that might make you interesting to a cop. Just stay home and read the forums I guess. But not the wrong kind of forums.

Woe be unto the citizen who tries to cite statute, and bring truth to (cop) power. They are labled as roadside lawyers, and treated with even more distain.

There you have in a nutshell why many NES members don't trust cops.

 

[m9guy]

The only thing that counts is the statute. Cops have always and forever interpreted wrong, mostly to further some agenda either they personally, or their department has, or they're just stupid. I'm sure you were a perfect cop who never got it wrong though.

Unfortunately as you point out, cops have the authority and societal blessing to slap cuffs on you and enact whatever roadside justice they want. If they are not total idiots, they can explain their way out of anything. I'm not sure what the practical remedies for this are, other than just don't carry a gun, or do anything else that might make you interesting to a cop. Just stay home and read the forums I guess. But not the wrong kind of forums.

Woe be unto the citizen who tries to cite statute, and bring truth to (cop) power. They are labled as roadside lawyers, and treated with even more distain.

There you have in a nutshell why many NES members don't trust cops.

Unfortunately, far too many ARE "roadside lawyers", and completely wrong. This goes in both directions. Thank you for your further input though. There is plenty of finger pointing to go in both directions, and plenty wrong in both directions. That is why I try to make sure "I" am correct; and did so when working LE as well.

 

[m9guy]

On another note, in general.... is this forum an anti-police forum? Is this forum a "no matter what happens, it was the police officer that was wrong" place? Is this forum one of "those" forums? I would like an honest answer so I can determine if I want to remain a member here. Thanks!

 

[browncoat]

On another note, in general.... is this forum an anti-police forum? Is this forum a "no matter what happens, it was the police officer that was wrong" place? Is this forum one of "those" forums? I would like an honest answer so I can determine if I want to remain a member here. Thanks!

Many of the members on this forum live or used to live in MA and CT. Here we have laws that are very unjust, especially when it comes to guns. The police are the enforcers of these laws, and often do so in a thuggish manner. There are cops on this forum who are good guys. There are other cops who threaten people and beat them. We like the good guys and don't like the bad guys.

 

[n1bsbri]

Please follow the actual link provided on their page. It is not superseded. It was modified, but the modification appears to still require the license.

OK, here's the statute in context according to the link you provided.

2. Exceptions. The provisions of this section concerning the carrying of concealed weapons do not apply to:

A. A handgun carried by a person to whom a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun has been issued as provided in this chapter; [2011, c. 691, Pt. A, §24 (RPR).]

A-1. A handgun carried by a person who is 21 years of age or older and is not otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm 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; [2015, c. 327, §2 (NEW).]

[sub B through E do not apply to this discussion.]

F. A handgun carried by a person to whom a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun has been issued by that
person's state of residence if that person's state of residence honors a permit to carry a concealed handgun issued under this chapter; [2015, c. 144, §1 (RPR).]

According to the main paragraph:

The provisions of this section concerning the carrying of concealed weapons do not apply to:

Then there's a list of circumstances where the restrictions do not apply. A-1 is the one already cited about anyone 21 years or older. Further down there is sub F which is just another circumstance where the restrictions do not apply. It's an OR situation, any of the paragraphs may apply, not all of them required. Adults over 21 who are not prohibited are allowed to carry under sub A-1. Sub F is redundant and was not removed in the recent law making.

By your argument, you would also be prohibited from carrying if you did not meet the qualifications of this:

G. A handgun carried by an authorized federal, state or local law enforcement officer in the performance of the officer's official duties; [2011, c. 691, Pt. A, §24 (RPR).]

 

[m9guy]

Many of the members on this forum live or used to live in MA and CT. Here we have laws that are very unjust, especially when it comes to guns. The police are the enforcers of these laws, and often do so in a thuggish manner. There are cops on this forum who are good guys. There are other cops who threaten people and beat them. We like the good guys and don't like the bad guys.

Fair enough. I am of the same mind, concerning all people.

I can also understand about MA and CT. TRUST ME. And unfortunately that happens in other places around the country as well. It truly is a shame.

As an officer I always erred on the side of the intent of the law and how any interaction served the community/society as opposed to simply the letter. In most cases there is discretion, and not every law is enforced 100% of the time. It would be darn near impossible to do that since legislators (not police) LOVE to write new laws. But that is how "I" worked, not all officers did or do. I find most are pretty darn good folks though. It has never been an easy job, and not everyone is suited for it (if not.... remove them), but now days it can be even harder with all the anti-police sentiment out there.

That is why I asked what I did. Look at what popped up shortly after my first posts here. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

OK, here's the statute in context according to the link you provided.



According to the main paragraph:

Then there's a list of circumstances where the restrictions do not apply. A-1 is the one already cited about anyone 21 years or older. Further down there is sub F which is just another circumstance where the restrictions do not apply. It's an OR situation, any of the paragraphs may apply, not all of them required. Adults over 21 who are not prohibited are allowed to carry under sub A-1. Sub F is redundant and was not removed in the recent law making.

By your argument, you would also be prohibited from carrying if you did not meet the qualifications of this:

The issue has been resolved. It now looks like you are simply trolling and trying to "win points". Not interested. Thanks.

 

[n1bsbri]

The issue has been resolved. It now looks like you are simply trolling and trying to "win points". Not interested. Thanks.

Well, you were the guy who came on here saying NES was full of sh*t and posting wrong legal information. And you know because you asked the Maine State Troopers, who should know what the law is.

So if I'm trolling, it's only because you showed me how.

There has been some well intended, but legally incorrect information posted here that could get people into serious trouble if they follow the information given.

 

[m9guy]

Well, you were the guy who came on here saying NES was full of sh*t and posting wrong legal information. And you know because you asked the Maine State Troopers, who should know what the law is.

So if I'm trolling, it's only because you showed me how.

LOL Nice try. The part you quoted me in shows that how you claim I came in and how I addressed the matter isn't even close to being true. I was at all times polite and respectful. The same can not be said about you.

EDITED: first to make the ignore list.

 

[NinerMaine]

I am glad this got settled. That way I do not have to post all the correct information as it has already been done.