• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is Maine going consitutional carry?

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

To those that claim that silence is golden, failure to answer correctly to the officer could result in a more serious charge.

With a $100 fine no one is likely to fight this. With the law as it is now, a $1000 fine, people will fight. A $100 fine people won't fight, and no lawyer will take that case. People that do fight will likely have an officer as a no-show in court, resulting in the charge getting thrown out. Thrown out or not the officer made their point, "you will obey."

To those that think keeping quiet is the best policy, that could result in a more serious charge. To those that say people should just get a license, then nothing has changed. To those that say you should just follow the law and inform, I give the example that NavyLCDR gave above.

I won't go so far as NavyLCDR and claim this bill would be a loss if passed, I will say that if there is a gain it is very very small.
If by Very Very small you mean that tens of thousands of people that would not feel comfortable openly displaying their weapon are now free to carry concealed without the need to get a permit, then I guess you're right, such a hollow victory. /sarcasm.

rediculous
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. No different than driving in a different state that doesn't allow right turn on red, making the illegal turn, and then claiming ignorance. You broke the law, you pay the price...
I'd say that is true if the law makes sense. This bill does not make sense.

When a person is in a consensual encounter versus a lawful detainment can be subjective. As is the definition of "immediate". Without seeing what the final version of the law would be it is quite possible that people could easily miss the part of the law that states when a person is required to inform.

You even said it yourself, if you don't like the duty to inform then get a permit. If that is your defense then the bill will do nothing.

Those most likely to be caught up with this bill are the law abiding poor, people that find getting a $35 permit a financial burden. Why do you hate poor people?
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
boyscout399,
I'll add further to the nonsensical nature of this bill. How does the Miranda warning start? We've all seen this in cop shows on TV, "You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent..."

So, tell me again how this bill makes sense?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
Proud of our Governor...Back off...

I have the same suspicions. This bill passed only with some careful wording added to appease the governor and the gun grabbers. (Did I just repeat myself?)
Our Governor is very conservative and NOT a gun grabber. You're not very well informed about our Governor if you so causally include him in that category. And I'm getting the feeling that you really aren't aware of the actual language of the bill. To "appease" the Governor, the language that was added concerned veterans and active duty servicemen under the age of 21. The "gunner grabber" language was the safety brochure and the duty to inform.

It is quite possible that there are persons with influence in the legislature that are both willing and able to kill this bill.
The bill passed both readings in the House (Democrat controlled) and the initial reading in the Senate (Republican controlled). It now sits on the Appropriations Table awaiting allocations. Now that the State's budget is nearly settled, it will get appropriated, returned to the Senate, who will pass the second reading, and be sent to the Governor, who will sign it.
 

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
I'd say that is true if the law makes sense. This bill does not make sense.

When a person is in a consensual encounter versus a lawful detainment can be subjective. As is the definition of "immediate". Without seeing what the final version of the law would be it is quite possible that people could easily miss the part of the law that states when a person is required to inform.
The language is plain English. It does NOT state "consensual encounter", which, I would argue, is actually quite an obvious situation. The bill lists 3 encountered when you have a duty to inform the LEO:
- when being arrested (folks are generally aware of when they're being arrested)
- when they're being detained (again, mostly obvious, but can be clarified with the legally recognized question, "Am I being detained?")
- during routine traffic stops (a vehicle which appears to be law enforcement and has flashing lights will be the first clue of this instance)

Those most likely to be caught up with this bill are the law abiding poor, people that find getting a $35 permit a financial burden. Why do you hate poor people?
Initial application for Maine residents is $35/4-years, renewals are $20/4-years. The long term impact of the "loss of revenue" is $5/year times 12,000 residential permit holders or $60,000...IF...no one renews.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
The language is plain English. It does NOT state "consensual encounter", which, I would argue, is actually quite an obvious situation. The bill lists 3 encountered when you have a duty to inform the LEO:
- when being arrested (folks are generally aware of when they're being arrested)
- when they're being detained (again, mostly obvious, but can be clarified with the legally recognized question, "Am I being detained?")
- during routine traffic stops (a vehicle which appears to be law enforcement and has flashing lights will be the first clue of this instance)


Initial application for Maine residents is $35/4-years, renewals are $20/4-years. The long term impact of the "loss of revenue" is $5/year times 12,000 residential permit holders or $60,000...IF...no one renews.
But, but, but, that could cause a financial crisis and essential services could go unfunded........color me sarcastic.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
You even said it yourself, if you don't like the duty to inform then get a permit. If that is your defense then the bill will do nothing.
Considering the average person gets detained by police less than one time a year. I think any sensible person would just not get the permit and inform the officer that they're carrying...

You're so against having to inform. I tend to wonder why?

9 other states also have duty to inform, and Arizona could be added if you consider when the officer asks you must answer. Arizona, no permit needed, must inform if asked. This is not much different.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
Let's not confuse TV shows with real life. A Miranda warning does not have to be given at the point of detainment.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-warnings-and-police-questioning.html
I know that TV is not a mirror on life but the fact of the matter is true, citizens of this federation have been told through TV, YouTube videos from lawyers and police officers, news & opinion articles on dead trees & electrons that we all have the right to remain silent in the case of an arrest. What is also stated by these same sources, some carrying more weight than others, is that by speaking you void your right to remain silent. I realize that it's always more complicated than that. Lawyers will tell us that if you keep silent you maintain the right to remain silent, if you speak this can be interpreted as waiving of that right.

This bill is flawed not only in that it is contradictory to what any lawyer worth their salt will advise but also on a few very practical matters. A person that is arrested will be searched for weapons, there should be no need to inform the officer that one is armed. No one gets arrested for an infraction, people get arrested for more serious violations of law. Having a person feel a need to inform officers that they are armed in an arrest, a very stressful situation, is bound to result in incidences of misunderstanding. People could get hurt or killed because an officer may misinterpret an informing of being armed as a threat. So, not only pointless but dangerous.

Police know to treat every encounter with the possibility that the suspect is armed. If officers need to know that one is armed then they can ask or they can search. Placing the burden on the law abiding citizen to inform only punishes those that wish to obey the law.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
Our Governor is very conservative and NOT a gun grabber. You're not very well informed about our Governor if you so causally include him in that category.
I will admit my ignorance, that is why it was a question and not a statement. I believe that what the governor may have thought was a harmless statement may have set events into motion that may result in the bill getting killed by the gun grabbers in the state legislature. If this bill ends up getting killed then the governor will share in the blame even if his past actions show his love for a free republic.

I realize I used "may" a lot in that last paragraph, there's just too many variables to prove anything beyond doubt.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
The language is plain English. It does NOT state "consensual encounter", which, I would argue, is actually quite an obvious situation.
I agree that the bill does not use the words "consensual encounter" but that is how I would define the opposite of what was defined. Basically the bill defined all instances of a non-consensual encounter. The only other situation not defined is no encounter, where the duty to inform would also not apply.

I cannot agree that a consensual encounter is obvious, I gave possible situations before and I'll give another below.

The bill lists 3 encountered when you have a duty to inform the LEO:
- when being arrested (folks are generally aware of when they're being arrested)
Agreed, officers are required to inform people when they are arrested. As I stated in a previous post a duty to inform in this situation is unconstitutional, pointless, and potentially dangerous.

- when they're being detained (again, mostly obvious, but can be clarified with the legally recognized question, "Am I being detained?")
Law Abiding Citizen: "Officer, am I being detained?"
Law Enforcement Officer: "Yes, I am ordering that you remain here until I am finished questioning you."
LAC: "Well then officer, I must inform you that I am lawfully carrying a concealed firearm."
LEO: "As you did not inform me immediately I must cite you."
LAC: "But I just did inform you."
LEO: "It should have been obvious that you were being detained from the start, therefore you failed to inform me immediately."

- during routine traffic stops (a vehicle which appears to be law enforcement and has flashing lights will be the first clue of this instance)
Yes, it will be obvious. This carries the same problems as with the arrest scenario, it's pointless, potentially unconstitutional, possibly dangerous, and serves to punish only those with no intent to harm another.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
Considering the average person gets detained by police less than one time a year. I think any sensible person would just not get the permit and inform the officer that they're carrying...

You're so against having to inform. I tend to wonder why?
As you raise no specific point on how I've failed to explain myself I must assume that either you do understand my arguments but disagree with them, or you simply choose to not understand.

9 other states also have duty to inform, and Arizona could be added if you consider when the officer asks you must answer. Arizona, no permit needed, must inform if asked. This is not much different.
No state has a duty to inform when there is also no need to have a permit. There may be a duty to inform when licensed, just like with a license to drive.

A requirement to present a license when asked for one is also common, like a license to drive. Requiring a person to respond in the affirmative if armed is also common, much like being required to give a name if asked. As neither action places a requirement to speak first there is no right to silence violation. If a person believes answering may incriminate then the person may invoke a right to remain silent.

Requiring a person to speak first is VERY unusual.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
I feel I must add that I find all instances of a duty to inform pointless, potentially unconstitutional, possibly dangerous, and serving only to punish those that intend no harm to others. I'm just commenting on the bill in Maine because it was brought to my attention by news reports, is a bill currently under debate, and highly unusual. I didn't mean to imply that I have no problems with a duty to inform when it exists in other states or when combined with a permit to carry weapons. A permit to carry weapons is also pointless, potentially unconstitutional, possibly dangerous, and serving only to punish those that intend no harm to others, just that the danger takes other forms than those from a duty to inform.

It is also of note that the topic of a duty to inform is not something one would expect to see discussed on a forum dedicated to the lawful open carry of personal defense weapons.
 

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
Yes, But...

Just so you know, I agree with you concerning the duty to inform; I oppose it but, as a Maine resident, will accept that part in order to get permitless conceal carry. The political climate in Maine s not such that we'll get everything all at once. And, unfortunately, ALL LAWS are enforceable and constitutional until they're challenged in court; there, they can be challenged and overturned.

Law Abiding Citizen: "Officer, am I being detained?"
Law Enforcement Officer: "Yes, I am ordering that you remain here until I am finished questioning you."
LAC: "Well then officer, I must inform you that I am lawfully carrying a concealed firearm."
LEO: "As you did not inform me immediately I must cite you."
LAC: "But I just did inform you."
LEO: "It should have been obvious that you were being detained from the start, therefore you failed to inform me immediately."
The sticky word in this whole mess is ...immediately... However, the legal precedence set by the court is that "immediately" means the next action after ascertain of conditions, circumstances, or situations. So, "immediate" doesn't legally mean "instantaneously", but it also doesn't mean "within a reasonable time". It falls somewhere in between. So, in your example above, the LAC did inform the LEO immediately after confirming the detainment. The amendment would have been better, if instead of "immediately", it read "promptly", but the politicos wanted to impress some urgency.

This carries the same problems as with the arrest scenario, it's pointless, potentially unconstitutional, possibly dangerous, and serves to punish only those with no intent to harm another.
Again, and again...very unfortunately...the ones whose must overturn it will also bear the cost of walking it up through the court system. Until then, it's legal, constitutional, and fully enforceable.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
I'll pile on again here and point out that the examples I've given are not theoretical, those kinds of situations have happened. Do a search on your favorite internet search engine for "duty to inform" or "must inform" and you will find situations like I have.

A timid elderly man is stopped by a very loud and agitated officer for some traffic violation. Every time the driver tries to speak the officer rudely instructs him to be quiet. A firearm is found, the officer gets even louder and more agitated, threatens to kill the driver, and tells him he will be charged for failure to inform. Was that officer acting poorly? Of course, after video of the stop came out he was fired. Did duty to inform help the situation? Not at all, the driver trying to comply with the law only agitated the officer more.

A pair of private investigators, both also former police officers, are investigating a man and following him around town as he is running errands. The man discovers them and apparently calls the police to set up a stop. The pair find themselves boxed in by police cruisers and an officer approaches, "Do you have any weapons!" The driver replies calmly that they are. The officers find out who they are, what they are doing, perhaps knowing this even before they were stopped as the man likely gave a license plate to the police. Finding nothing wrong the first officer to approach wanted to charge the driver with failure to inform as the driver did not inform before being asked. A police sergeant on the scene overruled the officer and the two were free to go. Had cooler heads not prevailed they'd be facing charges for doing nothing wrong.

A woman is driving to visit a neighboring state. She works as a nurse, has children to care for, and out of concern for her safety and her children's she purchases a firearm and gets a concealed carry license, generally doing all she can to comply with the law. She is stopped for a minor traffic violation and does what she was told to do in her concealed carry class, hands over her license to carry with her driver license and tells the officer that she is armed. The officer informs her that her license is not recognized in the state she is in and having carried a loaded weapon without a proper permit she is now under arrest for a felony. How did a duty to inform improve this situation? By being told she had to inform she had inadvertently admitted to committing a felony. Did she break the law? Perhaps, it turns out that at the time there was an amnesty period for a "compensated confiscation" (but the government called it a "buy-back" program) that neither the officer or the driver knew was in place at the time. The officer even admitted in court that had she neglected to mention the firearm that it would not have been discovered. She lost her job, had her children taken away, and had to argue for her freedom and children in court.

We need consistency in law or we will find people getting into trouble for not knowing when they must speak and when they should be quiet. We have the right to remain silent, any law that says otherwise is a violation of that right. A duty to inform serves no purpose but to entrap the law abiding citizen.

If Maine wants to enact a duty to inform law then be prepared for all kinds of legal headaches. Ignorant officers will use this law against the law abiding citizen. Informed and intelligent officers know that a duty to inform does not help them do their job, and informing them would serve no purpose but to annoy. They would not be annoyed by the citizen, but by the law.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
I see I posted at nearly the same time as Grundi, so I may go over some of the same points again as a reply.

Just so you know, I agree with you concerning the duty to inform; I oppose it but, as a Maine resident, will accept that part in order to get permitless conceal carry. The political climate in Maine s not such that we'll get everything all at once.
On one hand I agree with you. On the other I see a governor willing to sign a permitless carry bill and a legislature that is willing to compromise. These legislators know that not getting a permitless carry bill this session is going to disappoint some voters. I'd say push them a bit harder so that Maine gets a good law from the start. A duty to inform guts the permitless carry law, don't accept it and let them know you won't accept it.

And, unfortunately, ALL LAWS are enforceable and constitutional until they're challenged in court; there, they can be challenged and overturned.
Yes, all laws are enforceable until ruled otherwise. However, not all laws are constitutional, they are presumptively constitutional. If laws were constitutional from the time enacted then every law is in effect an amendment to the constitution. A duty to inform is not constitutional as it violates the right to remain silent. Why can I say that? Because I can read the Constitution. No lawyer in a robe is going to tell me otherwise.

The sticky word in this whole mess is ...immediately... However, the legal precedence set by the court is that "immediately" means the next action after ascertain of conditions, circumstances, or situations. So, "immediate" doesn't legally mean "instantaneously", but it also doesn't mean "within a reasonable time". It falls somewhere in between. So, in your example above, the LAC did inform the LEO immediately after confirming the detainment. The amendment would have been better, if instead of "immediately", it read "promptly", but the politicos wanted to impress some urgency.
Yes, the LAC did inform the officer immediately. The problem is that with this law we have ignorant officers that are out to enforce the law, not keep the peace. (When did we lose the term "peace officer" anyway? Might be an improvement if we went back to that, BTW.) So, we have bad law, ignorant officers, law abiding citizens colliding to clog up the courts from gun grabbing legislators trying to make the state budget look better from loss of concealed carry permit revenue. Maybe the fines will make up for the loss.

Again, and again...very unfortunately...the ones whose must overturn it will also bear the cost of walking it up through the court system. Until then, it's legal, constitutional, and fully enforceable.
It is not legal, not constitutional, and enforceable only until someone takes the state to court over it. Is that what you really want for Maine?

I used to think that this law would be a minor win for Maine but NavyLCDR is starting to convince me it would be a loss. It looks like it was only by a small margin of votes that Maine didn't end up with a duty to inform for even those with a permit to carry concealed handguns.

I've been told several times now that Maine should embrace this bill, get it passed, and come back next year to remove the duty to inform. I say, and I think NavyLCDR would agree, that it is equally likely that in the next session the duty to inform could be imposed on everyone that chooses to carry a concealed weapon.

Don't put duty to inform on the books. You have wins already with universal reciprocity, lawful possession of suppressors, a governor that has stated a willingness to sign permitless carry, and a legislature seriously discussing it. Don't let duty to inform pass even if that means not getting permitless concealed carry this year. I know that perfect can be the enemy of the good but duty to inform is not good.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
What is happening at the state legislature level.

Is it still dangling, being argued, amended? Somewhere along the way, I've lost contact with the here and now of this......thread is too long to read right at this minute.
 
Last edited:

Grundi

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
48
Location
Maine
Made ya look...

It is not legal, not constitutional, and enforceable only until someone takes the state to court over it. Is that what you really want for Maine?
I predict that the duty to inform law will not change at all until such time as a court requires it to be repealed or changed.
IA_farmboy and NavyLCDR, every one of your points are valid and could possibly happen...or they might not. Understanding that the onus and discretion falls on the LEOs and those LEOs are human, the only reply I can truly say is that Maine is not New Jersey, thank God!!!

If you think that the duty to inform is odious, you really won't like the other amendment that the gun grabbers added, which in my opinion is infinitely worse. If you're carrying legally, then the duty to inform is really no worse than having to give the LEO your driver's license in any of these situations. You try refusing a request for your ID, then let me know how that works out.

The other amendment that I mentioned...if you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, (and you carry concealed pursuant to this section - ie without a permit) then they must provide you with a safety brochure and have you sign an acknowledgement of receiving the brochure. Can you say back-door state-level, gun registry?!? But everyone's focused on the duty to inform...

What is happening at the state legislature level.

Is it still dangling, being argued, amended? Somewhere along the way, I've lost contact with the here and now of this......thread is too long to read right at this minute.
The budget needs to be completely settled, then the Appropriations Committee can allocate monies to it from the General Fund, release it back to the Senate, then on to the Governor's desk. So until the budget is settled, we wait.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,363
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Wowwie!!!

If you're carrying legally, then the duty to inform is really no worse than having to give the LEO your driver's license in any of these situations.

You try refusing a request for your ID, then let me know how that works out.
.
You a funny guy.....

Duty to inform is just the same, and just as dangerous as a Nazi SS demanding your papers!

Also,,, Folks have been legally carrying and legally refusing to present ID in the several States
for years...
In fact, Many! legal carriers make a Point of carrying Sterile,, no Id,,!!!!

We refuse to ID,, and It has worked out just fine,,
It has also expanded our 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights!
 
Top