Gun Bills signed by Governor June 21. Thanks for all the help.

Emailed our state rep today on this topic...Jeffery Gifford (R), Lincoln

Here is a handy little link to help you locate and contact your Representative. I hope this helps.

Who is my Representative and how do I make contact?

I have already spoken with my Senator and Representative on this and they both understand and will be supporting these bills.

I think Kevin Raye needs to understand the importance of these bills so if you are in his district please make sure that with everything else on his plate he has the benefit to understand these and will support them. It makes no sense to keep and create these "gun free zones" when the people who do the damage do not abide with the law.

On the employer parking lot bill, it is baseless hype to believe there will be any problem at all. Only the law abiding will benefit and no longer be disarmed by a knee-jerk company policy. The last I checked, my RIGHTS were not trumped by "company policy" nor should they be. Your locked vehicle retains your legal items in your posession, just like your home.

I think that if Heller can prove that having a firearm in your posession in your home in Washington DC is fine, than having a firearm in your locked car in a parking lot in Maine should be a no brainer.

Lets get the word out on these. Please report back here with any support or opposition. LOTS of eyes are watching.

I've emailed him, and will call next.

This needs lots of attention. Please make the phone ring and the emails flow to your Representative and Senator on these. Sen. President Kevin Raye needs to hear from us as well as Speaker Bob Nutting and House Majority Leader Andre Cushing III. Also, please thank Rep. Crafts for his assistance with these bills. It's time to crank up the support in a big way.

It is my understanding tha SAM is strongly supporting LD 35 (top priority on gun bills this session), and is supporting LD 1347.

Just for the sake of argument, shouldn't a business owner/property owner have the last say about what his or her employees can or can't do on the business property? If I am the boss, what I say goes. If you don't like it, you can leave. I don't know if that is infringing on anyone's rights. But this bill could be seen as government infringing on the business owner's rights.

I'll jump in on this one, Jon. No one's proposing bringing guns onto the property of another; it's to be locked in the employee's car, which is the employee's property. Not being allowed to keep your firearm in your car effectively disarms you during your commute, so it expands the employer's control over you beyond the boundaries of his property.

Good point. It is still the business owners property though. If you don't like it, you can always find another job.

I've got to side with the Hon. J. McKane on this one. I wasn't going to be the one to bring it up, but since the issue is raised, let's address it. This law does tell a private property owner what he can't do with his own property. But so does every zoning law out there . . .

Believe me, I want to be able to keep my gun in my truck. I just don't want the gov't telling my boss that he has to let me.

A related issue would be bumper stickers. It's a freedom of speech issue, but my property is a dictatorship.

Believe me, I want to be able to keep my gun in my truck. I just don't want the gov't telling my boss that he has to let me.

100%. I agree.

It's still a question of degree. My employer can keep me from stepping out of the car into his parking lot with a gun and can keep me from bringing it inside the building. That's one degree of control. Being able to control the inside of my car for a legal activity gives him control of my commute, a much greater degree of control. It would seem to me I could make a case for them being reponsible for my safe passage from home to work.

"...but my property is a dictatorship."

My truck is my property...

Sure j
J. McCain, I'll answer your question. Here it is, blunt and honest. Let's use your wife as an example to help you understand. Here is my scenerio;

Your wife works for a major employer 80 miles from home. Great job, benies and wages. She loves it, and her coworkers. There is a little "company policy" that says "no guns in your private vehicle". (Even though locked, unloaded and hidden) so that means from the time she leaves home till the tim she returns she is potentially defenseless. From home, to work and back home. This "little policy" prevents. Your wife from the most basic right of all, the ability to defend her life for 160 miles and 10 to 12 hours. Let's say her car breaks down at 2am on the way home, well off the property of this "little policy" and she is at the mercy of any predator who may stumble across her. She is at the mercy of anyone with unknown intensions, with no ability for self preservation because of a "little policy" that is meaningless except for someone with a bizarro power trip whose decision will not stop a single "bad guy" from bringing a gun on his precious property, because "bad guys" don't follow the law or "little policies" at all. They are bad guys.

So, your wife was forced to be a victim because of a "little policy" that does absolutely no good, but makes someone "feel good" for imposing their power on to people who are not part of any problem, but left to be potentially harmed.

My vehicle is also my property, like your land, and my right to self preservation trumps any silly "little policy" as far as I am concerned. My priorities are in stone. I would never work for a company with such an ignorant, innefective and arcane feel-hood, do nothing, knee-jerk "little policy" and that is by choice. The problem is that I have that option to make that decision while many others do not and should not have to. This "little policy" should not be legal and will not be legal anymore, after next week. Thanks for giving those who were unclear about this issue a clear peek into your "dictatorship theory" and the innefective measures and lack of fundimental safety you are happy to force your employees and/or visitors to abide by.

Ladies and gentlemen you have just read it as it is and now see why this legislation is so important to pass. There are some people who think so little of the liberty, safety and freedom of their legal, lawful, faithful employees that they are willing to jeopordize their very basic right to self preservation all for a "little power hungry policy" that will. Do ZERO to stop a bad guy from doing as he pleases and put the life of you and/or a loved one in danger for extended periods of time.

Please contact your legislators and the Republican leadership and ask them to pass these 2 VERY important safety measures as soon as possible. We need to act fast so they are not led astray by these arguments of "property rights" that are in place for no good reason.

I hope you all can forgive the odd spacing and punctuation in the above post. I typed it all on a little Blackberry and can't see the screen as I type.

I would never work for a company with such an ignorant, innefective and arcane feel-hood, do nothing, knee-jerk "little policy" and that is by choice.

That's the attitude.

The problem is that I have that option to make that decision while many others do not and should not have to.

That's nanny state talk.

So, your wife was forced to be a victim

I disagree. A. She doesn't have to work there. B. She can find another place to park. Her choice. Again, my parking lot is under the control of my dictatorship. You are welcome to leave.

You can try and justify it any way you need to, to convince yourself its not a rediculous and unnecessary thing to do, but the fact remains that it is completely useless in every way and only poses unnecessary risks to those under your "dictatorship". It is easy to tell someone "you can leave if you don't like it" but it is not that simple for someone who needs that job. It isn't a reasonable rule and it is discriminatory as well. Since its a silly "rule" it doesn't trump any "right" in my book and after next week it won't be an issue anyway.

Can I ask why you are so opposed to a law abiding citizen having the ability to defend themself in the first place? The bad guys don't follow rules or laws so your rule doesn't affect them anyway, and they are the only ones I would think you would be concerned with. I am actually amazed that this is even an issue with any rational thinking individuals at all. As a property owner VERY understanding of land owners rights (more so than most), the unseen, legal content of another persons private automobile has never been anything I have even considered caring about.

So your dictatorship extends to my private property? I can agree with your dictating what I can have inside a car provided by the company, after all that's the company's property I suppose. What I can't agree to is your company's right to force someone to commit a dangerous act, such as forcing them to commute through dangerous, crime ridden areas while disarmed. I think the courts have been clear that company's have no right to force employees to practice dangerous procedures. Can the employer insist I drive at least 55 mph in the parking lot? How about I can't park a car with seatbelts or airbags in his parking lot?

"How about I can't park a car with seatbelts or airbags in his parking lot?"

If we follow the logic dictated above, the answer would be yes. Personally, I don't understand the mentality that tries to dictate what an employee has in their vehicle, provided it's legal of course, other than to surmise that it's some sort of power trip. It seems to me to be along the lines of, "I'm the boss and I can make you do anything I want" or something. This doesn't at all sound like a Republican ideal though, which leaves me even more baffled considering that Rep. McKane and I are quite often on the same page with things...

Something just crossed my mind. Even the State of New Jersey is forced by law to allow those with prohibited firearms (in their state law) thelegal ability to be in their state with them if they are traveling through. So, here we have New Jersey, (VERY anti gun with a high crime rate by the way) who must allow firearms, even ones they find illegal under their own laws to be in their state when lawfully owned where they are coming from and where they are going to. On the other end of the spectrum we have "King Dictator the All Powerful Parking Lot Owner" who thumps his chest and decrees "You shall not bring anything into my esteemed lot that I decide is not becoming of my lot kingdom, even if it is legal and kept in your vehicle, locked and out of sight." And here in Maine of all places.

Oh well, It's gonna go away next week. Good riddance to bad policy. Thank God people will no longer have to choose between thei basic right of slf defense and having a job they enjoy. It was always wrong.

What is next, can you tell your employees that they can't have any birth control in their vehicle, locked away in their purse and out of sight because the next "Parking Lot Emperor" may be pro-life?

This is the craziest discussion I have yet to see here. Maybe I would understand better if I received political donations from the chamber or other spineless business associations that have fat pockets and little common sense. I just make my decisions based on fact. I am funnythat way. :-)

I don't recieve any donations from anyone, BS, if that is what you are implying.
I am also a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment and encourage owning, knowing how to use, and packing.
However, what I do on my property should be my business. If one doesn't like it, they can leave. Sorry that the libertarian view is so hard for you to comprehend.

I might not agree with the business owner who makes those demands of his employees, but I will defend his right to do so.

No, no J.McKane, I wasn't implying that you receive money (or don't for that fact because I have no idea at all) but I know some of our legislators have been "pressured" by outside sources in this debate and some who usually help the Amendment II issues are turning tail on this one. I know you are usually a friend and I am baffled that someone with your record would not support this basic affirmation of the most important reason for Amendment II, self preservation. I thank you for your help in other issues but I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree here. My stance on the right and responsibility to defend yourself and family is one I put ahead of all issues. I am glad you are strong on property owners rights too and I will talk with you about your support of Sunday hunting on my own land, and my ability to have a cold beer on my UTV while working my fences, both actions that the nanny-state have decided I can't do. I have a feeling we agree on far more than we disagree, but Amendment II and the rights and responsibilities that go with it and absolute for me. My land, my home and my vehicle are all under "MY Dictatorship" as earlier said, with no distinction and this is where we have to part ways. Maybe after this passes and is water under the bridge we can work together on those other pesky restrictions "others" place on MY land if you treally have libertarian leanings.

Bigshooter, I sure hope you're right that this bill passes. Neither business owners, nor government employers also, should be able to deprive people of their Constitutional rights.

Unless, I suppose, one suscribes to the "dictatorship" theory postulated above, though I thought this particular concept (It's my property and I can do what I darn well please with it and anybody on it!!, not to mention zoning and labor laws) was exposed for the farcical notion that it is during the Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-in, and subsequent passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but oh well.

How about bumper stickers on cars in parking lots? Should an employer be able to ban this form of free speech in the company parking lot? Just curious.

Yes, as long as the employer is a private entity and not government. The Bill of Rights limits government, not private entities.

We’re talking about an inanimate object inside a person’s automobile, it has no significant negative affect on the workplace or employers property. By requiring that the firearm not be visible, this legislation would essentially create a don’t ask - don’t tell situation.

I think the discussion comes down to corporatists versus individualists. It seems to me that an individual’s right to protect himself ought to override an employer’s irrational policy decisions. It’s popular to say that with rights come responsibilities, I think that goes both ways. If an employer’s policies deprive an employee of his right to defend himself, then perhaps the employer ought to be held responsible if an employee is victimized.

If a person on his way to work is assaulted or robbed at the coffee shop and can’t defend himself because of his employer, maybe the employer ought to be held at least partially responsible. After all, if an employee gets his arm lopped off in a machine because the boss thought the machine runs faster without safety interlocks do we say it’s the employee’s problem because he chose to work there?

A few years back when the Arizona Legislature passed their parking lot storage law they included a set of findings in it:
1 – the state and federal Constitutions provide strong protection for the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self defense;
2 – the enjoyment of this right is impaired if people are deprived the right to keep arms in their vehicles;
3 – people are deprived of their rights if firearms cannot be kept in their private vehicles;
4 – your locked private vehicle is private, not a public space, you have the right to furnish it any way you like that is legal to enhance your comfort, security, ease of movement and enjoyment of liberty;
5 – parking lot operators are not unduly burdened by the presence of legally possessed property secured within the vehicle by its owner;
6 – this act is for the benefit and protection of people who choose to exercise and enforce their fundamental right to bear arms in self defense in their movements throughout this state, including in their personal motor vehicles.

If a person on his way to work is assaulted or robbed at the coffee shop and can’t defend himself because of his employer, maybe the employer ought to be held at least partially responsible.

It is the emplyee's choice to take the job or not.

Here's another question - Can an employer prevent an employee from carrying a concealed weapon on the job? I think yes, it is the employer's perogative. The parking lot, to me, is no different. Same with freedom of speech - Whether it is a tee shirt or a bumper sticker, the employer has the final say except as Dan noted.

Where is the "reasonable limit" where you believe an employer can dictate what is posessed, secured and out of sight in a vehicle? Can a pro-life employer fire someone because they had birth control pills in their vehicle? Can an employer fire someone because there is a Hustler magazine hidden and locked securely in an a vehicle? Can an employer fire someone because they have a bible in the glove box of their locked car? Can an employer fire someone with a kwanza celebration kit out of sight in their locked car and out of sight? Can an employer fire someone because there is a gay-rights rally flyer hidden in the locked car? Let's assume these are all stated in company policy as forbidden if you work there. Where does this end and where does something legal and out of sight no longer become a reason for a policy violation? If your vehicle belongs to your employer from the time you leave until the time you get home, when do YOU own your vehicle? Yeah, yeah, you don't have to work there, but there is no rational reason for anyone to concern themself with anything legal and out of sight in a private vehicle at any point. I find it odd that any of these examples would not be considered a privacy issue and strongly backed by several acronym organizations. If this "dictatorship" theory is to hold water, it must be across the board, right? After all, if the people being fired don't have to work there, right?