LD 222

[NinerMaine]

I am surprised there is nothing here about LD222.

It is an over hall of CCW in Maine.

It has passed the house and the senate this past week. It was amended twice.

In short, if signed by LaPage it will do the following:

Increase permit term from 4-6 years.
Increases fee for residents to $52.50 for both initial and renewal.
Non-resident fees will increase from $60 to $120.
All non-residents must have a CCW from their home state to get one in Maine.
Remove authority of town officials to issue CCW's.
Allow and town with a PD chief or one that contracts with their County Sheriff to issue CCW's.
All other CCW's are issued by the state police.
All background checks will be done by SP regardless of who issues the permit.
All funds from fee will go to reimburse costs of issuing the permit.
Gets rids of the 5 year limit on safety courses.
Charges the SP with creating a uniform application and card that must be used by all issuers.
The SP are charged with keeping a confidential database of all permits which will be made to LEOs 24 hours a day.
It adds access to SP of mental health records.

The republicans attempted to amend it into constitutional carry and that was shot down by the Dems.

The only good thing I see in this is that it might be easier for reciprocity agreements to be made with other states.

From what I have read on other sights, the Dems did not ask for any input from or made any attempt to work with the Repubs on this. It seems they implemented it in order for LaPage to veto it which he is expected to do. They will then use that against him in the coming election.

It seems politics in ME have changed. The national Dems are pushing hard on ME Dems to pass gun control as part of the national push. They are pressing hard on all ME dems to play ball or else. Their goal is to remove LaPage from office and then pass the laws they want like AW bans, background checks, magazine bans. This is no longer a ME issue and the Dems are taking over the anti-gun charge led by Dion.

If we want things to stay the way they are we need to make sure Michaud does not win and we need to give control back to the Repubs. If not, we will be like MA, CO, NJ, CT and NY.

LD 222 http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/billtexts/HP018301.asp

mendment that passed http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/billtexts/HP018303.asp

amendment that passed http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/billtexts/HP018305.asp

 

[ntomsw]

Damn, I once again haven't done my maine non res even though I keep talking about it.

It looks like I better do it now, before they change it to $120.

 

[NickJ]

I thought that the reciprocity might get better, but I don't think so. As long as the chiefs of police have issuing authority I think it'll be a problem. We had the same issue in Colorado, permits are issued by the County Sheriffs.

 

[NinerMaine]

I thought that the reciprocity might get better, but I don't think so. As long as the chiefs of police have issuing authority I think it'll be a problem. We had the same issue in Colorado, permits are issued by the County Sheriffs.

The law would create a central database. The county may issue the CCW put the info will be held by SP.

 

[ne1122]

One of the many problems with this bill is that the state police will put all the material in their very broad, wide-sweeping computer database without any provision for appeal and without any provision for a person to even see or correct their own "information". The database is, as the bill states, much broader than just being swept up into a mental health facility - it includes everything on their extremely broad questionnaire for applying for a concealed carry permit. They will need much more than the $500,000 budgeted to start up their secret database, given the extremely broad nature of the current CCW permit application. Just to obtain and process detailed military and military health records for veteran applicants and put that into a database would be very expensive.

There is simply no practical way to build a credible, usable database of prohibited persons - at a minimum they should have to file formal court hearing papers to deprive any citizen of their Constitutional rights! No other process exists where a person secretly loses their rights without a court hearing or trial.

Our everyday experience with centralized personal databases is a great example of how these ideas fail - did you ever try to get something as simple as your credit bureau information corrected?

In another anti-gun rights bill they almost passed into law last year, there was some sort of commission that would hear appeals, but they were in Augusta and you'd have to bring your lawyer and your own experts to Augusta to try and persuade them that they had made a mistake in revoking your right to keep and bear arms. Currently, at least you "only" have to go to a local court and persuade a judge to restore your rights. Alternatively, you can often meet with you local chief law enforcement official and if he's reasonable, present evidence that you should not be a prohibited person.

It's very discouraging how the Democrats keep passing bill after bill with all sorts of partially hidden traps like this to revoke various groups of peoples' civil rights without a hearing or a viable appeals process. They really do want to make us like Massachusetts and New York, even though Maine is nothing like those states.

Bloomberg must be very proud.

 

[NinerMaine]

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/04/...aid-expansion-concealed-weapon-permit-reform/

thank you Gov. Lapage

 

[PatMcD]

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/04/...aid-expansion-concealed-weapon-permit-reform/

thank you Gov. Lapage

We'd be F-ed f it weren't for him.

 

[ne1122]

We'd be F-ed f it weren't for him.

We'll quickly become a clone of New York/California/whatever if he's not re-elected. I fear that there is little hope for replacing the Democrat legislative majority, which is the real problem. Thus, I'm clinging to the hope that the other candidates will split the vote again, leaving the Governor as the election winner once again.

This proposed law is nuts since Maine has so little crime, and no crimes related to CCW permits. As the Governor said, we really don't need a CCW permit process at all; we should follow New Hampshire's lead and get rid of this pointless and excessively complex and costly process.

 

[NinerMaine]

Did NH get rid of their CCW and go Constitutional Carry?

 

[PatMcD]

No. I think he meant VT.

 

[ne1122]

I apologize for getting NH and Vt mixed up in my post. Very embarrassing!

Here's a link to Vermont's laws, which are possibly the least restrictive in the USA:

http://www.usacarry.com/vermont_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Here's some key text from this page:

Concealed Permit:
It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow
man. There is no permit required to carry concealed.

Open Carry:
Unrestricted in most public areas and generally accepted.

 

[kayak1]

I apologize for getting NH and Vt mixed up in my post. Very embarrassing!

Here's a link to Vermont's laws, which are possibly the least restrictive in the USA:

http://www.usacarry.com/vermont_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Here's some key text from this page:

Concealed Permit:
It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow
man. There is no permit required to carry concealed.

Open Carry:
Unrestricted in most public areas and generally accepted.

Maine has a big plus over VT:
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/states/vermont/

I am in MA and looking forward to moving to maine and being able to go to the range and not have to put ear plugs under my ear muffs:
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/states/maine/

 

[W.E.C]

The John Kerry of Maine:
The bill’s sponsor, retired state trooper Rep. Timothy Marks, D-Pittston, said the veto “makes no sense.”


“I’m on the record as a supporter of constitutional carry,” he said. “I’m also a realist. If we’re going to have a system, it needs to be one that works. It’s got to be one that allows law enforcement to know what’s out there, that provides permit-holders with the reciprocity they deserve and keeps the fees in the system where it belongs.”

 

[NinerMaine]

The John Kerry of Maine:
The bill’s sponsor, retired state trooper Rep. Timothy Marks, D-Pittston, said the veto “makes no sense.”


“I’m on the record as a supporter of constitutional carry,” he said. “I’m also a realist. If we’re going to have a system, it needs to be one that works. It’s got to be one that allows law enforcement to know what’s out there, that provides permit-holders with the reciprocity they deserve and keeps the fees in the system where it belongs.”

The Dems made absolutely no attempt to include the repubs in drafting this bill. They left them out cold and brought it up quick with no room to change anything. I do not think they even wanted it to pass. I think their sole goal was for LaPage to veto it so that they could use it against him.