Maine law already requires a permit applicant to show a knowledge of handgun safety:
Demonstrates to the issuing authority a knowledge of handgun safety. The applicant may fully satisfy this requirement by submitting to the issuing authority, through documentation in accordance with this subparagraph, proof that the applicant has within 5 years prior to the date of application completed a course that included handgun safety offered by or under the supervision of a federal, state, county or municipal law enforcement agency or a firearms instructor certified by a private firearms association recognized as knowledgeable in matters of firearms safety by the issuing authority or by the state in which the course was taken. A course completion certificate or other document, or a photocopy, is sufficient if it recites or otherwise demonstrates that the course meets all of the requirements of this subparagraph.
As an alternative way of fully satisfying this requirement, an applicant may personally demonstrate knowledge of handgun safety to an issuing authority, if the issuing authority is willing to evaluate an applicant's personal demonstration of such knowledge. The issuing authority is not required to offer this 2nd option.
The demonstration of knowledge of handgun safety to the issuing authority may not be required of any applicant who holds a valid State permit to carry a concealed firearm as of April 15, 1990 or of any applicant who was or is in any of the Armed Forces of the United States and has received at least basic firearms training.
[quote="JIMV"]That is what i thought before I really, deeply, dug into the history of the idea. if conceled carry was the intent of the foudners, why is there no record of such a discussion and why did those same folk, in their state legislatures, pass laws that limited the practice?
I would love to find a good, definitive record of a debate on the issue by our founders. All I have found are legislation and early court decisions almost all of which support a state power of regualtion.[/quote]
I have to respect a person who researches an issue and accepts the results -- even when they do not support their desired position.
The reality is that people in the 1700's carried guns openly.
I spoke with a Pro-Gun issue Republican legislator today who is considered by many
to be the guy to talk to about NRA type issues (didn't get permission to use his name)
in the legislature.
He said that he will be speaking with several pro 2nd amendment Reps this evening and
is already formulating and working with people around the state to fight this.
When he calls me with more info I will pass on his comments.
...I showed them my certificate for first place marksmanship award from my class in the New Hampshire State Police Academy.
That was good enough for them.
I've long intended to take one of J. CHAPMAN's "Firearms and the Law" classes, but for some reason never got around to it. Laws and court precident are never stable or consistant, and it's something that I opine we really ought to keep up to speed on. But having said that, I'm a little loathe to see it legislated.
Perhaps a deduction could be made in the price of the permit or renewal for continuing education like that.
It's probably inevitable that we'll be seeing some tightening up on CCP requirements, and some sort of certification like this - especially the legal end of it - will probably become law at some point. And I really don't have a big problem with that, as long as allowances are still made for the "competence" aspect - appropriate military, LEO, or NRA training adequate as proof of competence.
And I'm totally against having to repeat the whole training course for each renewal.
That smacks of the sort of game that the TSA played on Pilots who were supposed to be allowed to bear arms on board their planes. The Gov't made them attend a training course way out in the desert somewhere and spend most of their vacation time doing it, and otherwise arranged for it to be such a PITA that very few if any flight crews ever actually qualified.
I suspect that Strimling has something like that in mind - if he can't abolish civilian carry outright, he would love to incrementally make it so expensive and complicated that very few would be able to excersize that right - or, if you prefer, "priviledge".
Are there any examples of those with permits in Maine using guns unsafely?
If not, why is this an issue?
Well, there was this recently
[url=http://www.asmainegoes.com/node/]Road Rage, A Gun & And An 18-Wheeler[/url]
I never did discover the outcome of it all...
being forced to take weinsteins course would not have helped that guy.
SOS, you are right about that. Crackpots cannot be regulated by any legislation.
Dan makes an excellent point: where are the stats on unsafe usage by permit holders?
This bill has me thinking about how willing people are to
"sell their souls" for their own selfish pursuits.
What is it that drives someone to advance their own self interest
at the expense of the people that are for all intents and purposes
"on the same side" so to speak.
It's bad enough that we have to fight the anti-gun crowd without an alleged pro-gun activist giving them support. I note that Jeff has not seen fit to give us his reason for proposing and supporting an obvious piece of anti-gun legislation. I can't imagine that any members of his organization would remain so after this.
ZUMBO and now this...
bad news always comes in 3's
...That I for one would not mind seeing (and I'm about as zealous a pro-2nd A guy as any) is a provision for suspension or revocation of a CWP for carrying under the influence.
If anyone carrying is too drunk to drive, then they are not bearing arms responsibly, IMHO.
I have heard of at least one CWP holder who was bagged for OUI while under arms, and I don't know what became of it.
Now I dont know about you, but drunks with guns make me very nervous, and they certainly don't do our cause one bit of good.
[quote="laMaine"]The bill seems reasonable to me.
A little education never hurt anybody.[/quote]
So what would you like to learn about firearms?
:lol: :lol: Go, Mike!
Uncle Jaque, I believe the last CCL booklet I got specifically mentioned that you can lose your permit if caught carrying while under the influence.
This is a bad idea. Education is a good thing, but not when it is forced. Let alone the fact that you have to take the course to get the permit, and take it each time that you want to renew your permit. One time would be enough, every time smacks of trying to profit from the bill.
[quote="Mike Travers"][quote="laMaine"]The bill seems reasonable to me.
So what would you like to learn about firearms?[/quote]
Nothing Mike. But I did pass a firearms safety course back in 1976.
That must have been when you learned everything you needed to know about "semi-automatic machine guns."
No MIke -
I learned the proper way to control a firearm. It was a great course.
If this bill passes, I will make sure that the people all over this area know everyone else that it is possible to take this course with. As I have said before I think it is rather disingenuous for Jeff Weinstein to push a bill that openly mandates a class he constantly advertises and makes money off of. I am not saying that there is not value in the course, but I was able to prove that I had suitable proficiency in firearms handling to my issuing authority and I did not need to take Jeff's class. I have held a permit without issue for eight years and work hard to keep current on state and national CCW law and issues. I see no reason why I should be constantly required to take a class from someone that I do not think represents my interests. We live in a free market economy and if people are not taking Jeff's class, maybe there is another reason aside from the lack of a law.
I sincerely hope that all gun owners boycott Jeff's class and that as many gun owners as possible call Carl Turner and other legislators to inform them that Jeff Weinstein does not speak for them on this issue. I was so mad about this legislation I made call from the Dallas Fort Worth airport as I was headed home today. As far as I am concerned until I hear a public statement from the NRA they can kiss my membership dues good-bye this year as well. I re-joined because a good friend was concerned that I let my membership lapse. This legislation might even get him to consider not renewing his membership.
Nothing Mike. But I did pass a firearms safety course back in 1976.[/quote]
1976? What did you take it with, a flintlock?
Let's say you will be required by law to retake the driver's license road test every year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exact same principle, no?
has anyone talked to Jeff? He could end this quickly by asking Turner to withdraw the bill before it is scheduled for a hearing.
Jeff, an AMGer in good standing, replied to this on page 1. I asked Jeff for his take on this bill - also on page 1 - and I hope he does weigh in.
Editor, I read Jeff's response on page 1 when it was posted. It said nothing of substance and claimed that his reasons would become clearer later. He also claimed the bill was in "rought draft" which tells me that he either knows little about the legislative process or is deliberately obfuscating. The obvious anti-gun thrust of this bill calls into question both his motives and the legitimacy of the organization he represents.
All true. That's why I would like to hear from Jeff, especially since we have the bill itself, not just a rough draft.
Barry Sturk and Rep, Rich Cebra on Kevin Crocker this morning.
The NRA IS NOT supporting this bill
Rep Cebra speaking on vigilence in defense of our 2nd amendment rights to
Gun Grabbers-"We Never Close"
he also gave out a e-mail address for those who want to stay on top of the issue:
I sent the bill off to Gun Owners of America to get their take. It will be interesting to see if the parent organization agrees with the position of the Maine chapter.
Good to see Cebra is on top of this.
Paul Davis just called and suggested that an amendment be added to this bill that Maine adopt the same laws as Vermont in relation to CWP, and that would mean no requirement is needed. Vermont allows any citizen in good standing to carry a weapon. Great idea, Paul :!:
Roger Ek, I agree this bill should die in committee, but I fear it will not. There are more than enough democrats on this committee to bring this bill to the floor and enough of a democrats and would be republicans to pass this bill and Baldy would sign it. Jeff Weinstein has opened a large can of worms.