Right now the Maine Senate is debating LD 35. Live video feed:
J. McKane and Big,
You both make excellent arguements, and as you know I like and respect you both, but you both forgot the most important arguement (trump card): The Constitution.
Constitutional rights do not end at the border of another persons property. Obviously, and strangely enough, this principle has been reenforced many times in the courts. And also obviously, the individual exercising those rights on some one else's property does not have the right to take away other individual's property or rights in excercising those rights.
The First Amendment and the Second Amendment are rights held by individuals. It would be stupid to exercise those rights at the expense of a job, but they are still rights nonetheless.
J McKane I respect your arguement that it is your property and you are the boss.
Bigshooter I respect your arguement that protecting your life, limb, and property are as basic a right as freedom of speach.
Both are important responsibilities and both are personal property. I hope that this law does pass, because either way it has ramifications that are important to individuals, and both of you are generally on the same side of freedom issues.
Thanks for letting me contribute.
I'm told LD 35 passed in the senate today, 19-15. Good work everyone!!
Rollcall Details for Senate Roll-call #211
LD 35 (HP 28) Printer Friendly
Date: June 9, 2011
Motion: ACCEPT MAJ OTP-A RPT
Number of Yeas Required: 18 (simple majority)
Yeas (Y): 19
Nays (N): 15
Absent (X): 0
Excused (E): 1
Member Party Vote
ALFOND of Cumberland D N
BARTLETT of Cumberland D N
BRANNIGAN of Cumberland D N
COLLINS of York R Y
COURTNEY of York R Y
CRAVEN of Androscoggin D N
DIAMOND of Cumberland D N
DILL of Cumberland D N
FARNHAM of Penobscot R N
GERZOFSKY of Cumberland D N
GOODALL of Sagadahoc D E
HASTINGS of Oxford R Y
HILL of York D N
HOBBINS of York D N
JACKSON of Aroostook D Y
KATZ of Kennebec R Y
LANGLEY of Hancock R N
MARTIN of Kennebec R Y
MASON of Androscoggin R Y
McCORMICK of Kennebec R Y
PATRICK of Oxford D Y
PLOWMAN of Penobscot R Y
RAYE of Washington R Y
RECTOR of Knox R N
ROSEN of Hancock R Y
SAVIELLO of Franklin R Y
SCHNEIDER of Penobscot D N
SHERMAN of Aroostook R Y
SNOWE-MELLO of Androscoggin R Y
SULLIVAN of York D N
THIBODEAU of Waldo R Y
THOMAS of Somerset R Y
TRAHAN of Lincoln R Y
WHITTEMORE of Somerset R Y
WOODBURY of Cumberland U N
It has been a long and exhausting fight for passage of both these bills and you can bet that I will not rest until they are delivered to Governor LePage. Thank you all so much for the support and participation. We need to remember tomake "Thank You" and "Attaboy" calls to the Reps and Senators wo voted FOR these bills to pass. They heal lots of people scream when a issue is coming up but I bet they can hear crickets after they put it on the line for us.
Lets call these Senators and Representatives and thank them tonight. They need to know we care and are still here even after the hype has ended. I will becalling mine, as well as the leadership immedately.
So, If I own a business I guess I start asking whether an applicant has a concealed weapons permit and if they say yes, I can choose not to hire that person. Nothing anyone can do about it since the ME Legis cares more about appeasing the NRA than letting me have whatever policy I want with respect to possession of firearms on my property-the parking lot. If an applicant lies about having a CWP, I will pick that up in the background check and decline to hire them based on the fact that they lied. In addition, as a condition of remaining employed in my private enterprise, all employees will be required to state whether they possess a permit because I am adopting a new policy of not employing anyone with a CWP. There is no 1st Amendment right on my property and in my business and the 2nd Amendment is no different. Don't like my policy? Head down the road, I can find someone else in this job market who will accept my rules to have a good job.
I find it strange that the NRA agenda requires Maine to intrude upon how I wish to run my business where my capital is at risk. I did not think that is what the R agenda represented, I could have had that with Baldi and the Maine Peoples Alliance.
Is it wise to declare your business a victim zone?
Your logic is flawed in so many places I couldn't address them all in an hour so I'll just pick the most obvious.
Yup, you could fill your business with absolutely no one who has the background check, training and good moral character to have been issued a CWP. Then you can sleep well at night knowing that the only people you are surrounded with who may have a firearm concealed are criminals. Good call.
Good gosh. The criminals don't bother with a CWP and that is what makes those silly policies and signs so ineffective. Every place there has been a mass shooting in recent history has been a "gun free zone" (luby's Cafeteria, TX - virginia Tech - Columbine, long Island Railway, Fort Hood, etc) for obvious reasons, and all that is certain in those places is that if a bad guy does decide to have his way with you, your friend or your family, no one will be around to help. That is the only thing for certain.
That's all I'm even going to dig in to that post. Good Lawd.
Kenny Beck, why would you think that your property rights are more important than mine?
BTW, what's the name of your business so I can be sure not to patronize it since you obviously don't want my business?
I find it bizzare that you would considering hiring someone that you would trust with working with you and in trusting them to keep your interests at heart, yet worried about what they had in their trunk.
It reminds me of old Italian that said never trust anyone with a van because who knows what he can steal from you and you not know it. Times have always been hard.
Cute pseudonym, by the way, and I'm sorry if I'm late to the party picking up on it. I may change my name to Andy Scroggin.
Anyway, I mentioned this in an earlier post, so I apologize for the rerun, but please type in "Greensboro Lunch Counter" in your favorite search engine, and read the story about how your business rights don't trump Constitutional rights.
For extra credit, please look up "Columbine", and write a 500-word essay on the effectiveness of "gun-free zones".
I look forward to your eloquent response.
Have a good night!
Oh, Kenny? Kenny?
You guys are an echo chamber. Everyone who does not have a CWP is a "victim", come on that is foolish. I understand that criminals do not have CWPs, but if I do background checks to weed out the criminals, then I don't hire them either. You do not have Constitutional Rights on my private property. The Constitution addresses individual rights and power of the government. Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion in the DC v. Heller case (upholding 2nd amendment rights) said: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." That case dealt with the DC federal enclave, not one's private property and your 2nd Amendment rights end at my property line. Isn't that why in a gun loving state like Texas, you can legally shoot an armed intruder coming onto your land?
While the state economy continues to die on the vine, we are spending time on guns in parking lot laws? There are not armed carjackings occurring at intersections while people travel home from work. This is the agenda of a special interest which the Governor purported to reject all special interests upon taking office.
In your zeal to promote your interest in a strong 2nd Amendment, you want to trample my private property rights which are also rooted in the Bill of Rights and are sacred to many Americans. Today you erode those rights, be careful because that same zeal to erode the rights of others on their private property may one day impinge upon your own 2nd Amendment rights-see Scalia's quote above, it is not absolute.
I appreciate the debate here, don't shoot the messenger. The biggest test of Free Speech is dealing with opinions that you hate.
"you want to trample my private property rights"
Again, you want to trample my private property rights in favor of your own. Why is that? Why are you so special that you have more rights than I do? Why do you think you should be able to have more control over what's in my vehicle than I do?
Because you are on my property. If I have a CWP, can I park in your driveway, can we pass a law that allows me to hang out on your deck? As an employee, you are an invitee on my property! You can exercise your second amendment right elsewhere. In public, on property you own or are otherwise welcomed. Why is that so hard for you to understand and respect? I respect your right to carry, but you have no constitutional right to a job or a parking space at my private business. Go ahead, impair those rights and your 2nd amendment rights will soon follow. I am not a public or governmental entity, the Constitution does not guarantee you the same protections as if I were.
By the way, unless this law also applies to the State House parking lots, these people are hypocrites and cowards.
Kenny, your anti-gun rhetoric is amusing. Screw the "property rights" argument. Let me get this straight...it's ok for a less than ethical employee to carry a gun onto your property because they sure as heck ain't gonna tell ya, but you think it's wrong for someone with a CWP? Huh? Get a grip Kenny. In fact, I bet Big would give you lessons and teach you about firearms so you would understand them and not be afraid of them. He'd even let you shoot one. How do you survive living in Maine in November? Lot's and lot's of people, including me, wearing a suit, have a pair of boots, blaze orange, and firearm in the car. They're all around you Kenny.....they're coming....they're coming.....they're coming......they have medicine for dillusions Kenny....it's ok. Just remember, once prescribed....no CWP for you!
I'd bet the only person Kennebec employs is the guy that plows his driveway
I understand that criminals do not have CWPs, but if I do background checks to weed out the criminals, then I don't hire them either.
I find this very intersting. A CWP holder must pass a backround check, indicating they aren't a criminal. If you do a background check, I'm willing to bet it won't be as forthcoming and complete as the one the police did. Even if it is, if you know someone has a CWP, you can forego your check because one has already been completed. Yet you are lumping the people who have passed the background check with those who have failed one by using that as the sole discriminator for not hiring them.
In your zeal to promote your interest in a strong 2nd Amendment, you want to trample my private property rights which are also rooted in the Bill of Rights and are sacred to many Americans.
Are they private property rights when you run a business? After all, you have to abide by many rules under which you have no control, such as discrimination in hiring. It seems to me the CWP holder being discriminated against would come under that section.
You talk as if people will be open carrying on your property, they aren't. I fail to see how somone having a weapon, locked in their car and not visible, will in any way impact your business.
I have a rule I live by, which is a "don't ask -- don't tell" of sorts: If a business advertises or makes it known they are anti-gun, especially with the hopes of attracting customers, I make it known I will never set foot in that business or support it. That is not to say businesses have to be for or against firearms, many are just neutral and I'm fine with that. But those businesses who go against our second amendment get to enjoy me exercising my first amendment to go elsewhere.
Food for thought.
I recall that the Constitutional right of defence is an individual right and the courts have ruled that those rights travel with you wherever you go. Since individual rights trump corporate rules and since a business or company is almost always in some way incorporated, then the individual right is king.
Thank you gentlemen for providing vivid examples of why it is so diffulcult to have any rational discussion about this issue.
The seems to be a thought that the 2nd only applies to only those who excersize the right and anyone who chooses to excersize the right contrary to others is vilified , regardless of their view and how it is thought to be.
For the record I am not anti gun, I believe if one feels the need to do so then they should have one and do what is lawfully allowed w/it responsibly!
Kenny, where do think employer rights end? Do you think you should be able to fire a woman because she has birth control pills in her car? Do you think you should be able to fire someone because they forget and left a softball bat from the game the night before in their back seat? Do you think you should be able to fire someone because they have a pamphlet on a gay rights rally in their glove box? How about a Bible? Maybe a Boston Red Sox hat? A gun is an inanimate object and is no different than any of these.
Do you really think that by being an employer, you should have so much control of someone's personal life? If so, perhaps you were born a few hundred years late, or in the wrong country.
Jeepn: being a CWP holder does not afford you the legal status as a class protected (disability, age, race, etc) from discrimination under the law. JCMCards: wow, you wear a suit AND keep your boots, blaze orange as well as a hunting rifle in your car (volvo?). "Screw property rights"? Nice. Is that how you go about your hunting in November, by ignoring posted land or have you ever had a property owner grant you permission to hunt on their property. Don't assume I have never shot a gun or that I do not enjoy hunting and please do not confuse my advocacy of private property rights with "anti-gun rhetoric." As for my "dillusions", I will go in search of getting "a grip" as you suggest while you go get a dictionary or figure out how to use spell check, Mike G, you to make unwarranted assumptions about the number of people I employ -btw: I snow blow my driveway and proudly spew carbon fumes into the air. Gaffer: see my post above, I am not a government actor so the Constitution does not regulate or control whether I grant you the exercise of those rights on my property. I am not trying to prove or disprove to Bigshooter or Thom Madison whether "gun free zones" fail to protect helpless folks from Columbine crazies. In fact, I may even run a business with armed guards, so I am not actually worried about my employees being victimized at work.
Butch, yup, I want to be able to fire them for any reason-good or bad (you are breathing my air the wrong way) so long as it is not discriminatory. I take the risk that my actions will benefit or impair my prospects. That is the beauty of capitalism, free markets and Maine being an at-will employment state (something the Dems, organized labor, Maine Peoples Alliance and their ilk have repeatedly tried to throw out).
I will again ask: does this law apply to the State House parking lot?
I know "dillusions" was a spelling error, but in honor of Senator Dill, I'm stealing it. The Senator is dilluded about many things.
Final enactment LD 35 5 minutes ago. 73 to 71
Refresher for those who may have forgotten what LD 35 does:
An Act Relating to Concealed Firearms Locked in Vehicles
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 26 MRSA §600 is enacted to read:
§ 600. Concealed firearms
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 bill provides that an employer may not prohibit an employee with a valid concealed firearms permit from keeping a firearm in the employee's vehicle as long as the vehicle is locked and the firearm is not visible.
Kenny: You are most definitely entitled to your opinions. And you are certainly entitled to run your business as you see fit, so long as you stay within the law. If you wish to have a business policy that prohibits firearms on your premises - although the courts have been fairly clear that an automobile in your parking lot is not subject to your rules - by all means, do so.
Chances are there will never be any sort of incident on your property that ends in loss of life due to an armed intruder - or even an armed employee. Chances are that most of your employees will never have to defend their life on the way to or from your facility. But if either of the prior events does happen, I hope you have a great deal of liability insurance coverage, because chances are that you will be sued and chances are that you will lose.
And what's worse is that someone will be dead or injured, and you will be in part culpable. Chances are, given your callous disregard for life as manifested in your policies, that you can live with that.
Naran, this is the amended version:
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.’
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'm told the NRA considers this bill to be the most important piece of gun related legislation in Maine for at least the past decade. Time to call and thank your representatives and remind your senators that there are many people watching this vote very closely.