Gun Bills signed by Governor June 21. Thanks for all the help.
- Login to post comments
"Could they change the rules of employment after you are hired, like at any time? Just as an example, if you have been working at a place for years, could they come out with a new policy or directive and require you to follow it? "
Maybe not in a union shop, under the circumstances you describe. It would depend on the management rights clause. In a vanilla private employer setting, they are free to change terms of employment. A significant enough change might permit a "voluntary quit for good cause attributable to employment". Not sure this would qualify.
"Nothing in this section
affects provisions in the Maine Workers' Compensation Act of 1992."
Here's why employers still have a "dog in the fight".
Not being a Lawyer, I suspect that the rest of that paragraph SHOULD quell all legal fears. In my opinion it is a knee-jerk response and not a logical one. As J. McKane has pointed out several times in order to avoid the questions I asked him about where the personal property of the employee eventually becomes just that, personal property of the employee, and not under the dictatorship of the parking lot owner, people can just stick their gun out of sight with no problem short of a vehicle search and there is no large scale (or even tiny scale) issue right now with Workman's Compensation in this regard. AND I would point out that those engaging in it now are conducting an action already forbidden which shows a lack of regard for the policy. This new law that will pass tomorrow will let the responsible people join in.
Here is the rest of the paragraph:
2. Immunity from liability. An employer or an agent of an employer may not be held liable in any civil action for damages, injury or death resulting from or arising out of another person's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, the theft of a firearm from an employee's vehicle, unless the employer or an agent of the employer intentionally solicited or procured the other person's injurious actions.
I hope OUR REPRESENTATIVES know that their vote tomorrow will be watched closely. Some opposing this have received high marks from the Amendment 2 groups in the past, helping them greatly. It will be their ACTIONS that will reflect any further support far more than their answers on a survey. Our National, State and Grassroots firearms groups have this issue under a microscope and are hoping for the logical passage of both.
Where do these two bills stand now?
"Crry in State Parks" passed the House and heading to Senate. They were still working on the "Parking Lot CCW" bill when I had to leave at 5:30.
Regardless the outcome f thee I can't wait to tell you my new list of anti-gun legislators and businesses. They will be famous after this. Some will try to pas it off as NOT being anti-gunbut I tend to base facts on actions, not lip service. If they voted against these or were a business (that needs our money to survive) who paid to have people lobby against this, they will be FAMOUS within a week.
Seeing some of the drama/games/acting/lying happen on the floor of the House sickens me. Some may really be that stupid and some may have been brainwashed by the big business lobby that is scared to death of licensed CCW holders on their property, but that leaves plenty in the liar category. The true tales from this session will be told for years to come........
Cross your fingers Gaffer, but it's going to be a needless fight for both even though they should both just slide through. BTW, I can't wait to have some of these self proclaimed "Private Property Champions" sponsor some bills that represent some real freedom on my land. Sinc they will not have the big business lobby holding their hand I bet that when the phone doesn't ring..........it will be them calling. More at 11. ;-)
I guess that explains why I didn't hear back from my representative....
House relaxes gun laws at state parks
By Christopher Cousins, BDN Staff
Posted June 07, 2011, at 8:44 p.m.
Print this Print | E-mail this E-mail | Facebook this Facebook | Tweet this Tweet
Poll Question
AUGUSTA, Maine — Carrying a concealed weapon in your local bar, your parked car at work or the halls of the State House should remain off limits, House members decided Tuesday while relaxing restrictions at state parks and historic sites.
While opponents of three proposals debated Tuesday in the House of Representatives said loosening concealed weapons rules would put more members of the general public at risk, proponents said restricting them would rob people of their constitutional right to bear arms as a matter of self-protection.
http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/07/politics/house-relaxes-gun-laws-at...
The Parks bill passed the House yesterday. The Employee Protection Bill (Parking Lot Bill) will be voted on today. The opposition is bringing out all the theatrics on this one, painting a picture of the old West and shoot-outs in the parking lots as well as some imagined enhanced liability even though they have been exempted. Others are calling it a property issue without mentioningthe private property of the employee (the vehicle) in whichthe firearm will never leave.
They and ensuring that the only guns in the area will be those illegally there with NO law abiding people having the same protection.
They are forgetting that EVERY mass shooting has happened in a gun free zone, where NO GOOD GUYS have the ability to stop the bad guys.
They are forgetting that if your wife must travel far distances from home or lateat night that she is completely disarmed the entire daydue to their policy.
They are forgetting that some employees have several jobs and if they have to drop off a deposit on the way home and are coming from a gun free zone, they are an easy target.
There are a lot of things wrong with NOT supporting this bill and all the usual suspects are behind the smoke and mirrors.
This bill needs to be passed as the Criminal Justice committee voted it out "Ought to Pass."
We are being set up to get snowballe and need to act now. Defeat the lies and wrongful theatrics. Call the House line NOW and ask for passage today on LD35.
Those in my district who vote(d) against this have now lost my support. I have never cared what letter is after their name, but some I supported in the last election.
It just shows you which people care more about businesses than individual rights, even when those rights aren't a detriment or hinderance to the business.
I support those who have the best interest of their individual constituents in sight, even if their aim is a little off.
I will be flip-flopping on this issue. Not because of any threats or intimidation, but because of Gina.
Gina is a friend of mine. She is a slight, pretty woman who carries a concealed weapon and knows how to use it. She has worked at the same job for many years. She likes her job and is good at it. Her boss is quite liberal and "anti-gun." There is a good chance that if LD 35 didn't pass, Gina would continue to work there but she would travel to and from work un-armed.
Gina asked me why I voted against LD 35. I tried to explain to her the libertarian ideology that I felt was dictating my stand against LD 35. It sounded a bit hollow.
Liberals have been for years dictating to businesses what they can and can't do with their businesses - how much they have to pay employees, how they have to protect them, train them, how and where the businesses can be built, and much more - virtually every aspect of how they can run their private businesses. Although I feel just a little hypocrtical, I feel it is not a great intrusion into the business owner's rights. It won't effect the business in any way and it will allow employees to more easily excercise their 2nd amendment rights when they are not on the business property.
That's more like the John McKane I usually agree with. If you see Diane Tilton, tell her that her constituents are watching.
Despite what the BDN says, this bill is still alive, but treading water. NOW is the time to call the house and make your voice heard. I just did.
Maine House Republicans 287-1440
Sen. Mason moves to indef pp LD 932 re: allowing concealed weapons State House. New security measures by the Legislative Council persuaded LD 932 sponsor to ask that bill be withdrawn. Measure passed in Senate under the hammer.
Thank you J. McKane!
I am so happy we no longer have to agree to disagree on this issue. I am also happy that your friend spoke with you and was able to convey what I was not.
I was in the gally in the House yesterday and I was sickened at the arguments against the legislation. While it is a clear and clean issue to me, you and I could disagree on it and still have an adult debate because you were doing what you felt right based on the information you had. Unfortunately the "Usual Suspects" were out and loud with foolishness, lies and propaganda about firearms in general. I am used to it after 20+ years dealing with these issues but it still irritates me when some who have no idea what they are talking about trivialize something that is so important.
The Chamber is pulling out all their "Big Guns" on this issue like it really means something. All it stands to do is disarm those who follow the law and their "policy" while not discouraging anyone who will ignore both. Once again, the good guy gets shafted. Either way nothing changes for the business no matter what they say. My vehicle and its contents has been proven to be my private property in the Supreme Court more than once but in all the passionate speeches about private preperty rights, no one seems to give the employee and regard.
Once again, THANK YOU VERY MUCH for thinking this through and keeping the discussion flowing. Now, can you talk to a few others who may me a little mis-led on this issue? ;-)
BTW, Butch is correct. Please call the House Line right now and leave a message for your Representative to vote for passage of LD35.
Maine House Republicans 287-1440
I will be flip-flopping on this issue. Not because of any threats or intimidation, but because of Gina.
I don't like the term 'flip-flopping', since it implies a person cannot change their mind based on new information, and instead must adhere to some archaic and immovable line of thinking. Sort of like only voting party line on issues. I'd rather have a free-thinker who is able to explain and defend their actions than one who cannot. I hope your post about intimidation or threats was not due to my post, because it was not intended as such. I merely wanted to relate that actions have consequences, and I cannot in good conscience support someone whose thoughts are not in alignment with my own. On some issues, I am ambiguous and could understand reasoning for both sides. But this issue is one of freedom of choice, which I hold in higher importance. I thank you, Rep McKane, for doing what is right.
Liberals have been for years dictating to businesses what they can and can't do with their businesses - how much they have to pay employees, how they have to protect them, train them, how and where the businesses can be built, and much more - virtually every aspect of how they can run their private businesses. Although I feel just a little hypocrtical, I feel it is not a great intrusion into the business owner's rights. It won't effect the business in any way and it will allow employees to more easily excercise their 2nd amendment rights when they are not on the business property.
I understand this, as do many people who worked on it, and it has been mentioned several times. I'm wondering why it was finally understood. Was it because there was a face to the issue, so it became personal? I do not find it hypocritical, but rather edifying.
The bill was written so it was so non-intrusive to those businesses. If it were intrusive, I would also be against it. Businesses do not need more laws to stifle them, there are too many out there now, but this isn't one of them. It was for this reason, and for freedom of choice, that I support it. Even if I choose not to put it in the car, that is my choice, one which has no impact on any business.
I just called and there is still time to let the representatives know how you stand on this. They are not voting on it until after lunch. I also urge people to call.
LD 578 An Act to Allow Municipalities to Restrict Firearms in Cert Circumstances Debated in Senate Now http://bit.ly/m2OYdy Motion: To Accept Majority Ought Not to Pass Report
Thank you, Rep. McKane.
Allow Municipalities to Restrict Use of Firearms? Senate Votes Yes
Sen. Katz Amendment mandates posting of sign in firearm restricted area.
Senate votes 27 (Yes) to 7 (No) to let out-of-state law enforcement officers with permits carry concealed weapons in State.
Senate votes 27 (Yes) to 7 (No) to accept "Ought-to-pass" amended version of LD 1347 concealed carry bill.
Gerzofsky is clueless...
So is Dill...
Have emailed both my Rep. and Sen. and sent another this morning but got a snotty re[ply from Rep Graham and a civil reply from Sen. Woodbury that he would vote against LD 35. These flaming liberals dresses as Democrats! I cannot see how any gun owner could possible be a Democrat, or even a Republican for that matter. The Repub's have frittered away the best chances to make some significant changes for the better. Gosh, they make me upset!
Well I heard back from yet another Rep. This time Rep. Strang Burgess (R) said she voted against it as well because the NRA should have never tried to sell this . She also listed the different groups that were opposed to it. They include: The Maine State Chamber of Commerce, along with the
Maine Association of Broadcasters, the Maine Youth Camp Association, the Androscoggin Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Merchants Association, the Bangor Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Tourism Association, Mid Maine Chamber of Commerce, the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Maine Automobile Dealers Association, the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS), the Maine Grocers Association, the Maine Restaurant Association, the Maine Hospital Association and the Maine Medical Association.
Well BS we now know who to blame when the fit hits the Shan and when there are no police to come to rescue those in need. I think that I shall ask businesses if tney belong to any of these groups and if they do I will tell them I no longer will trade ther unless the complain to that organization about their anti Constitution stance. There are enough gun owners in Maine that could really cause a stink with businesses if they had the moxie to do it. They won't as most of them have been wussified as well. What say you all?
LD35 PASSES 75 to 68 and is sent to the Senate!!!!!!!
I said it wasn't over till it's over......
Grea job everone, now lets get on the horn to our Senators. It may be as early as tomorrow and they NEED to hear from everyone you know. The Chamber of Commerce is pulling out all the hype and silliness, smoke and mirrors, and have some Senators confused. PLEASE call & email tonight and tomorrow am and ask them to follow the House and pass LD35.
I'll be calling Kevin Raye tomorrow and mentioning these points to him:
- The Supreme Court has ruled that your vehicle is an extension of your home property rights. An employer's property rights should not supersede your own.
- Where do employer rights end? Can a woman be fired because she has birth control pills in her car? Can you be fired if you forget and leave a softball bat in your car from the game the night before? How about someone being fired because they left an NRA hat in their back seat? Or a TU jacket? Or a pamphlet on a gay rights rally? Or a Bible?
- If you read the papers, mass shootings happen in "gun free" zones, not elsewhere.
- Criminals, by definition, will have guns regardless of any law.
The whole process of passing this bill in the house was nuts. Maybe I'm a little simple but what part of the right to bear arms shall never be questioned is not explainable. Furthermore, how many times does a business owner question what the heck is in your car...kind of reminds me of don't ask me any questions and I'll tell you no lies.
It upsets me to think that individuals do not understand that when we make gun laws that violate our rights the ones that are generally hurt are the ones who obey the law.
When guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns.
Here's the roll call vote:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/rollcall.asp?ID=280038924&ch...
Rollcall Details for House Roll-call #151
LD 35 (HP 28) Printer Friendly
Overview
Date: June 8, 2011
Motion: PASSAGE TO BE ENGROSSED
Number of Yeas Required: 72 (simple majority)
Outcome: PREVAILS
Yeas (Y): 75
Nays (N): 68
Absent (X): 7
Excused (E): 0
Member Party Vote
AYOTTE of Caswell R Y
BEAUDOIN of Biddeford D N
BEAULIEU of Auburn R N
BEAVERS of South Berwick D N
BECK of Waterville D Y
BELIVEAU of Kittery D N
BENNETT of Kennebunk R Y
BERRY of Bowdoinham D N
BICKFORD of Auburn R N
BLACK of Wilton R Y
BLODGETT of Augusta D N
BOLAND of Sanford D N
BOLDUC of Auburn D N
BRIGGS of Mexico D N
BRYANT of Windham D Y
BURNS of Whiting R Y
BURNS of Alfred R Y
CAIN of Orono D Y
CAREY of Lewiston D N
CASAVANT of Biddeford D N
CEBRA of Naples R Y
CELLI of Brewer R X
CHAPMAN of Brooksville D N
CHASE of Wells R Y
CHIPMAN of Portland U N
CLARK of Millinocket D Y
CLARK of Easton R Y
CLARKE of Bath D N
CORNELL du HOUX of Brunswick D N
COTTA of China R N
CRAFTS of Lisbon R Y
CRAY of Palmyra R Y
CROCKETT of Bethel R Y
CURTIS of Madison R Y
CUSHING of Hampden R Y
DAMON of Bangor R Y
DAVIS of Sangerville R Y
DILL of Old Town D N
DION of Portland D X
DOW of Waldoboro R N
DRISCOLL of Westbrook D X
DUCHESNE of Hudson D Y
DUNPHY of Embden R Y
EBERLE of South Portland D N
EDGECOMB of Caribou R Y
ESPLING of New Gloucester R Y
EVES of North Berwick D N
FITTS of Pittsfield R Y
FITZPATRICK of Houlton R N
FLEMINGS of Bar Harbor D N
FLOOD of Winthrop R Y
FOSSEL of Alna R Y
FOSTER of Augusta R Y
FREDETTE of Newport R Y
GIFFORD of Lincoln R Y
GILBERT of Jay D N
GILLWAY of Searsport R Y
GOODE of Bangor D N
GRAHAM of North Yarmouth D N
GUERIN of Glenburn R Y
HAMPER of Oxford R Y
HANLEY of Gardiner D Y
HARLOW of Portland D N
HARMON of Palermo R Y
HARVELL of Farmington R Y
HASKELL of Portland D N
HAYES of Buckfield D N
HERBIG of Belfast D N
HINCK of Portland D N
HOGAN of Old Orchard Beach D N
HUNT of Buxton D N
INNES of Yarmouth D X
JOHNSON of Eddington R Y
JOHNSON of Greenville R Y
KAENRATH of South Portland D N
KENT of Woolwich D N
KESCHL of Belgrade R Y
KNAPP of Gorham R N
KNIGHT of Livermore Falls R N
KRUGER of Thomaston D N
KUMIEGA of Deer Isle D N
LAJOIE of Lewiston D N
LIBBY of Waterboro R N
LONG of Sherman R Y
LONGSTAFF of Waterville D N
LOVEJOY of Portland D N
LUCHINI of Ellsworth D N
MacDONALD of Boothbay D N
MAKER of Calais R Y
MALABY of Hancock R Y
MALONEY of Augusta D N
MARTIN of Eagle Lake D Y
MAZUREK of Rockland D N
McCABE of Skowhegan D Y
McCLELLAN of Raymond R Y
McFADDEN of Dennysville R Y
McKANE of Newcastle R X
MORISSETTE of Winslow R Y
MORRISON of South Portland D N
MOULTON of York R N
NASS of Acton R Y
NELSON of Falmouth D N
NEWENDYKE of Litchfield R Y
NUTTING of Oakland R Y
O'BRIEN of Lincolnville D Y
O'CONNOR of Berwick R Y
OLSEN of Phippsburg R Y
PARKER of Veazie R Y
PARRY of Arundel R Y
PEOPLES of Westbrook D N
PETERSON of Rumford D Y
PICCHIOTTI of Fairfield R Y
PILON of Saco D N
PLUMMER of Windham R Y
PRESCOTT of Topsham R N
PRIEST of Brunswick D X
RANKIN of Hiram D N
RICHARDSON of Carmel R Y
RICHARDSON of Warren R N
RIOUX of Winterport R Y
ROCHELO of Biddeford D N
ROSEN of Bucksport R Y
ROTUNDO of Lewiston D N
RUSSELL of Portland D N
SANBORN of Gorham D N
SANDERSON of Chelsea R Y
SARTY of Denmark R Y
SHAW of Standish D Y
SIROCKI of Scarborough R Y
STEVENS of Bangor D N
STRANG BURGESS of Cumberland R N
STUCKEY of Portland D N
THERIAULT of Madawaska D Y
TILTON of Harrington R Y
TIMBERLAKE of Turner R Y
TREAT of Hallowell D N
TURNER of Burlington R Y
TUTTLE of Sanford D Y
VALENTINO of Saco D N
VOLK of Scarborough R N
WAGNER of Lewiston D N
WATERHOUSE of Bridgton R Y
WEAVER of York R Y
WEBSTER of Freeport D N
WELSH of Rockport D N
WILLETTE of Mapleton R Y
WILLETTE of Presque Isle R Y
WINSOR of Norway R Y
WINTLE of Garland R X
WOOD of Sabattus R Y
And here is the amended bill:
Amend the bill by striking out everything after the enacting clause and before the summary and inserting the following:
‘Sec. 1. 26 MRSA §600 is enacted to read:
§ 600. Concealed firearms in vehicles
1. Firearms in vehicles. An employer or an agent of an employer may not prohibit an employee who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm under Title 25, chapter 252 from keeping a firearm in the employee's vehicle as long as the vehicle is locked and the firearm is not visible. This subsection does not authorize an employee to carry a firearm in a place where carrying a firearm is prohibited by law.
2. Immunity from liability. An employer or an agent of an employer may not be held liable in any civil action for damages, injury or death resulting from or arising out of another person's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, the theft of a firearm from an employee's vehicle, unless the employer or an agent of the employer intentionally solicited or procured the other person's injurious actions. Nothing in this section affects provisions in the Maine Workers' Compensation Act of 1992.’
summary
This amendment, which is the majority report of the committee, replaces the bill and specifies that an employer or agent of an employer may not prohibit an employee who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm under the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 25, chapter 252 from keeping a firearm in the employee's vehicle as long as the vehicle is locked and the firearm is not visible. The amendment does not authorize an employee to carry a firearm in a place where carrying a firearm is prohibited by law.
The amendment also specifies that an employer or an agent of an employer may not be held liable in any civil action for damages, injury or death resulting from or arising out of another person's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this provision. Finally, the amendment provides that this provision does not affect any provisions in the Maine Workers' Compensation Act of 1992.
I'll save readers some of the time to ferret out those legislators with no regard for human rights or the Maine Constitution.
BEAULIEU of Auburn R N
BICKFORD of Auburn R N
COTTA of China R N
FITZPATRICK of Houlton R N
KNAPP of Gorham R N
KNIGHT of Livermore Falls R N
LIBBY of Waterboro R N
MOULTON of York R N
PRESCOTT of Topsham R N
RICHARDSON of Warren R N
STRANG BURGESS of Cumberland R N
VOLK of Scarborough R N
What in the world could Fitzpatrick be thinking? Houlton is the Maine home of Smith and Wesson. Is the man color blind and can't tell what button to push?
Thank goodness for a few clear thinking rural Democrats who put this over the top.
You forgot:
DOW of Waldoboro R N
You can be sure I won't forget him though. And we will have a discussion on it the next time I see him.
I am also thankful for some of the clear-thinking democrats on this issue, which I don't see as partisan. Emily Cain especially surprises me.
- Login to post comments
Hi Stavros!
I have a partial list I just received over the weekend that I will be researching today. I hope it comes up incorrect but I am afraid it will not. It is sad that some large employers have such little regard for their employees, both in taking away their ability for self preservation, and for many who work long hours and travel great distances, not allowing them to have their hunting rifle locked up in the trunk for a cherished afternoon hunt after they punch out off the clock and wish to harvest some venison for their family on the way home. The next few days will bring some extremely interesting information into this debate.
Today and tonight is crutial to contact our legislators and ask them to support this life saving measure for the workers of the State of Maine.