Attn: Gun Owners - Immediate Action Needed on CCW Bill (Passed House and Senate)

Too bad we have to stoop to this crap. How about letting people keep their guns on them, where they are not only useful but safer. I hate having to leave my gun in my vehicle where any dirtbagcan get his hands on it. With all of the vehicle break-ins and thefts, how can the anti-gun folks think it is safer fo me to leave my gun in my vehicle than keep it with me?

It's actually worse than that FNG. They want you to leave your gun AT HOME! The minority party has been fighting this tooth and nail with a few exceptions, and now they have stooped so low that they have a MINORITY report they want to vote on that will not only stop State employees from having the same fundamental right to preservation of life and liberty as those of us in the private sector, but their MINORITY report will REPEAL the ability of ALL law abiding citizens to the same.

Envision this; Your 125# wife works at a big manufacturer 80 miles from home. They have a "No guns in your vehicle" policy. That means that if your wife breaks down at 3am on the Turnpike on the way home, she has ZERO ability to thwart a rape, murder or robbery by someone who doesn't have the same regard for the law. What if it isn't "your wife" but a young girl with a restraining order on a estranged boyfriend who knows where she works? How anyone can think it is ok to mandate that you must be defenseless from the time you leave home till the time you return is beyond me.

The bottom line is simple. Bad guys don't follow The 10 Commandments, Criminal Law, Civil Law or company policies. Disarming the people WHO DO follow all the above is nothing short of ignorant. Every single mass murder happens in one of these "gun free zones" and expanding them is moronic.

Please contact our legislators and ask them to support the MAJORITY report and vote against the minority report. Please remember that the party-line, no compromise Democrat party hacks are working hard to disarm you once again and this time they are doing it with the help and rabid insistence of the Chamber of Commerce. These people are MUCH more concerned with their policies than your life. Plain and simple.

They are voting Monday so please forward this information to everyone you know. They are trying, once again to slip one past us with their games and catch us off guard.

We Really need to get and stay on this right now, big time. Big Business is on the phone right now with their numerous paid lobbyists hammering and hammering every Representative. Our inaction could hand them a win and the good, legal gun owners a defeat on a silver platter. Please pass this along to everyone you know and ask them to make a 2minjte call to their Representative this weekend. It's go time.

Another assault on constitutionally garneted natural rights and the minority report authors have probably never read the Maine Constitution.

Let’s say a work place decided to adopt a policy of no guns on their grounds. What right do they have to search private property (car) to invade the space of employees to see if they are in violation of this policy or law? Will we be seeing corporate security peering into cars looking for guns or running CWP names to see who might be carrying guns in their cars?

Thanks to Bigshooter for keeping an eye on fundamental breaches on our liberty and a thanks to the Majority for defending basic rights.

Here's a question.
Since a CWP is a public issued document I assume it is not a confidential bit of information.
Is it?

Bruce Libby, the answer you are looking for is here:

Title 25 §2006. Confidentiality of application
Notwithstanding Title 1, sections 401 to 410, all applications for a permit to carry concealed handguns and documents made a part of the application, refusals and any information of record collected by the issuing agency during the process of ascertaining whether an applicant is of good moral character and meets the additional requirements of sections 2003 and 2005 are confidential and may not be made available for public inspection or copying. The applicant may waive this confidentiality by written notice to the issuing authority. All proceedings relating to the issuance, refusal or revocation of a permit to carry concealed handguns are not public proceedings under Title 1, chapter 13, unless otherwise requested by the applicant. [2011, c. 298, §11 (AMD).]

The issuing authority shall make a permanent record of each permit to carry concealed handguns in a suitable book or file kept for that purpose. The record must include the information contained in the permit itself and must be available for public inspection. [2011, c. 298, §11 (AMD).]

Personal Information on law abiding citizens is always available. Is there a database of those who carry illegally, or a registration similar to the NFA database for illegal gun owners? Nope, just the good guys. That's what makes it all so silly.

This legislation pertains ONLY TO STATE EMPLOYEES btw. It just allows them the same opportunities as those of us who work for others. It is the Democrats with their vindictive MINORITY report that somehow morphs this into legislation affecting the private sector.

At some point we have to understand that most legislators with a (D) beside their name desire you to be an unarmed victim. (This is not a blanket statement because we have a precious few Dems who are our very good friends). We need to start asking these root questions to get to the real answers. Why don't the Democrats want you to have the ability to defend yourself? They are great when manufacturing "victims" when it suits their purpose, but if you're a regular Joe, working man forget it. Maybe if you become the target of a crime they will prop you up and use you as "proof" for some perverted agenda, but why do they consistently work so hard to keep you from becoming a victim? It's odd in such a historically hard working state as Maine, anyone opposed to the most basic of all rights, the right of self defense and self preservation and regularly urinate on the Constitution could get elected at all, nevermind blindly supported.

Thank You Bigshooter.
The applicability of this was not clear.
By the way since that is the case I am just wondering how many state employees were engaged in the discussion of this?

I can tell you this I have seen a lot of 'employees " relieved of duty sent home under various stressful situations the thought of the firearm in car is not pleasant.
I have seen escapees run by employee cars in parking lots. There are legitimate security concerns in this issue but understand those will be trumped anyway.

Would you object to the state as employer having knowledge of a CWP being issued when one of the reasons for application was employment related?

Bruce

The CWP statues are geared toward LEOS and Corrections, but the Public Safety still interprets the language however they want. With written permission from a Chief of Commissioner no CWP is required of employees, just some small print on the back side of their ID card.
This legislation would trump some of the CWP laws. IMO

The law will not address County Employees only state, do bad and not fair.

I don't see the logic of any of that Bruce, to be honest. We are discussing law abiding people of good moral character who have passed background checks, local and Federal. Why would "the most vetted" citizens following the law as usual be of concern when there is no system of checks and balances on those who break the law foe a living, do what they want and don't bother to "ask" for a permit of legislative permission to do anything? Maybe I am comfortable with armed citizens having firearms since almost everyone I know has a CCW and carries 100% or maybe just more trusting in my fellow man, but I don't see the connecting between those that comply with the law acting like those who don't. Trust me when I say it's not those who carry a legal firearm you need to worry about. It's obvious you have never been through one of our pistol classes.

Bigshooter I realize you do not see the logic because you are using logic that is not understandable to many others.
That doesn't make any different at this point ,unfortunately in these cases the constitutional defenseis going to be paramount over all other arguments until something happens and then something else will be used to defened the position i.e. your analogy of good guys law abiding vs. bad guys etc. . I am more concerned w/ the good guys in the parking lot at work then I ever was another scenario.
The day one CWP holder was showing his 10 mm and discharged a round in the parking lot is still vivid in my mind!!!
Have all the permits etc. etc. but I see nothing wrong with an employer having that knowledge particularly if basis for application was employment related.

title 25sec2001-A
Ttile 25 section 2001-A Exception D) A firearm carried by a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer or a corrections supervisor as permitted in writing by the officer's or supervisor's employer; [2011, c. 394, §3 (AMD).

I think it’s safe to stipulate that the intent of this exception was to acknowledge a demand for professionals to carry firearms in a concealed manner while on or off duty.

Here is a little history on this topic: In the realm of Corrections, there was a time when all of the employees of the Maine State Prison where required to undergo firearms qualifications as a condition of their employment. However this requirement became a challenged to maintaining staffing levels at the MSP because many hires couldn’t pass the state qualification test, using standards from MCJA. The reaction was to discontinue the requirement and focus the training on special posts for Operations and Transports. The outer perimeter was the area of concern and to date the deadly force statutes are specific to MSP Corrections Officers, an area that some Sheriff’s should have had a beef with.

I once got into a debate with a member of the Maine State Police over the fees associated with a CWP that I was about to file for, the SP representative failed to acknowledge Corrections as sited in MRSA for a fee waiver. I ended up going to Portland PD where a detective uderstood the law.

Back to this new bill proposal. With all the statuettes supporting the charring of firearms by licensed LEO’s and CO’s, it makes little sense to impose another conflicting statues that prohibits such actions on State property. The same argument holds true of any private citizen who has gone through the necessary steps to obtain a CWP, but may face regulatory restrictions that no only violate constitutionally protected rights but put the individual in jeopardy while working in potentially hostile environments.

Bruce, why would the basis for getting a concealed carry permit be work related?

There are some Officers who feel it is necessary to have a firearm based on occupational hazards. When dealing with inmates some Officers have been threatened with death and harm to their families. Inmate make threats about calling their people on the outside and having them do their bidding.

On the flip side I’ve also heard true accounts of Officers having a letter left on the seat of their car after a former inmate had broken the window out to steal items, but realized who owned the car and left a letter of apology without stealing a thing. However other cars in the parking garage where victimized.

Stephen, I understand what you're saying, but the last I knew there was no "basis" required to get a CCP, work related or otherwise:

http://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/licenses/documents/Weapons/resident%20appli...

You’re correct Mr. Mooore. There are however exceptions for CWP built into the law for occupations. Keep in mind the Maine is also an open carry state and no CWP is even necessary, but most people get them to avoid all the fuss from gun grabbers.

Butch no offense but see Stephens post above and it doesn't matter there is no discussion that is going to change anything on this subject since this topic is always in the context of absolute w/ little or no acknowledgement that while the "right " is absolute that does not mean that it by choice can be chosen to not be exercised. Matter of fact quite frankly those who do not exercize it are subject to ridicule and questioning. As to all the reason to have a firearm
the biggest one touted protection from a government that doesn't need CWP's does it?

Butch also I am awhere that in past when staff at MCC did so they used employment as a basis when applying in Windham.

Bruce, you said, "Would you object to the state as employer having knowledge of a CWP being issued when one of the reasons for application was employment related?" My point is, since "reason for application" doesn't exist on the form, how could an employer be notified in the first place? Perhaps there was a day when a "reason" was required on the form, but no more, nor should it be.

OK Butch !
Like I said there is never going to be a discussion that differs from the absolute .
I accept that and understand it.

Maine is a "must issue" state. If they can't prove you have a record you'll get your permit in less than 60 days. The Brady bunch doesn't want us to have firearms. Since the state lets us carry, they use other means to try to prevent us from carrying. The example above of a lady who drives 80 miles to and from work is a good one.

"Maine is a "must issue" state."

As it should be, short of no permit being necessary like VT. No permit necessary nationwide would be best.

If a citizen who advocates for handgun control cannot hold a rally and exercise its 1st Amendment rights on Bigshooter's front lawn (i.e. his private property) because they would be trespassing, why is it ok for the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights on the private property of some business-their parking lot?

If I understand your question Kenny it is a good one.
My quess would be it isn't but the absolute argument would be it should be!
Remember this bill is about state property only.

Kenny, why is it okay for some business to deny the constitutional rights of some individual in their private property - their car?

Bruce, since it's the state, why is it okay for the state to deny the constitutional rights of some individual in their private property - their car?

State property is the peoples property and is expected to have public access. Where is the compelling government interest to justify limiting firearms from a parking lot that is expected to have the general public moving around in a free society? Should we also set up road blocks on state roads to prevent firearms transportation on state property or is it just the place a car comes to rest that creates such an unjustifiable risk?

The car is on the property of the owner! But that means nothing in this argument.

Maybe the state is looking out for the rights of others to be safe , the accusation of denial of something is a absolute argument , whether something is actually denied is a open question to some.

But that doesn't matter in the absolute world of this issue.

The state enjoys the idea of looking out for others as the great protectors of all things dangerous, but has yet to show how gun free zones have made anyone safer. In fact all I read about are shootings by bad guys victimizing law abiding people in the gun free zones.

A few decades ago Israeli schools were attacked on a regular basis. Ten school teachers began to carry Uzis in schools. There have been no attacks on Israeli schools since. We put people on airplanes who are well armed to deal with whatever may occur. Pilots can nor carry firearms in flight. Do our children deserve less protection? Our country has become paralyzed by political correctness.

Bruce, does the owner of a store have the right to search my car because he/she owns the land while I'm shopping? Does the state have the right to search my car at a rest stop on I95 because they own the land?