Posted yesterday on Glock talk, Carry Issues.

If the same incident happened involving a civil right that the liberals feel strongly about you would have hippies laying in the streets, wearing the same t-shirt, making national headlines.

What are we doing?
 
Whether or not one sees benefit in open carry is completely irrelevant. A man was engaging in a LEGAL activity. He was then tackled and arrested by the Portland PD because someone called 911 to report his LEGAL activity.

The cops couldn't charge him for the gun so they hit him with some bogus charge for carrying pocket knifes.

DO YOU GET IT?????? A man's god given and constitutional rights were violated. What you think about open carry has no bearing.

Guess what, the antis see no benefit in you having any gun or even paper clips and rubber bands. Gun owners need to stick together and support those who have their rights blatantly trampled upon. You could be next one to have your rights violated.

Hophead:

Actually I DO GET IT. All rights are conditional. Just as one doesn't yell "fire" in a crowded theater (if there is no fire) one should exercise similar caution in the open carry of a handgun. If I walked down the main street of any urban area in the Northeast (it might be different in a place like Montana) where open carry is permitted, I can reasonably be expected to be stopped and at least questioned by the police. Perhaps I might get arrested on some trumped up charge too (why: because they (the police) can) such as carrying a pen knife on my keychain.

So, with open carry, comes an even greater responsiblity, in my opinion, than concealed carry to exercise good judgement and not call attention to myself. To me it is it is not dissmiilar to this scenario: Let suppose for a minute, I can legally carry a concealed handgun in New York City. I want to exercise my legal rights, so at midnight I go for a stroll through Central Park, simply because it is my legal right to do so. I do it because I can, not because I need to take a shortcut. Now is this a wise or prudent thing to do? I think that prevailing philosophy with regard to carrying a handgun today, is to simply avoid situations that might cause conflict or trouble for oneself. All the person from Maine did was attract attention to himself and by exercising his legal rights is now in a jam that whatever ensures in the aftermath will follow him around for the rest of his life.

Are you willing to have a police record? Do you have the financial resouces to mount an effective defense? Nothing ever goes away in the Criminal Justice system, and once you are in the system no matter if your case is dismissed, sealed whatever, it's still there waiting like a time bomb to go off when you least expect it.

So, exercise your legal rights, but use common sense. Rights come with responsibilty.

Mark L.
 
Last edited:
So what you are saying is that is not a good idea to open carry because you may be arrested by government agents who violate their oath to protect to defend the US Constitutution.. This is exactly the problem.
 
Hophead:

Actually I DO GET IT. All rights are conditional. Just as one doesn't yell "fire" in a crowded theater (if there is no fire) one should exercise similar caution in the open carry of a handgun. If I walked down the main street of any urban area in the Northeast (it might be different in a place like Montana) where open carry is permitted, I can reasonably be expected to be stopped and at least questioned by the police. Perhaps I might get arrested on some trumped up charge too (why: because they (the police) can) such as carrying a pen knife on my keychain.

So, with open carry, comes an even greater responsiblity, in my opinion, than concealed carry to exercise good judgement and not call attention to myself. To me it is it is not dissmiilar to this scenario: Let suppose for a minute, I can legally carry a concealed handgun in New York City. I want to exercise my legal rights, so at midnight I go for a stroll through Central Park, simply because it is my legal right to do so. I do it because I can, not because I need to take a shortcut. Now is this a wise or prudent thing to do? I think that prevailing philosophy with regard to carrying a handgun today, is to simply avoid situations that might cause conflict or trouble for oneself. All the person from Maine did was attract attention to himself and by exercising his legal rights is now in a jam that whatever ensures in the aftermath will follow him around for the rest of his life.

Are you willing to have a police record? Do you have the financial resouces to mount an effective defense? Nothing ever goes away in the Criminal Justice system, and once you are in the system no matter if your case is dismissed, sealed whatever, it's still there waiting like a time bomb to go off when you least expect it.

So, exercise your legal rights, but use common sense. Rights come with responsibilty.

Mark L.

I disagree, if it is legal, then I don't see why it's any different than walking down the road while open carrying a flashlight.

If people are interested in open carry but are intimidated because they feel scared that they will get harassed by the PD for this LEGAL action, then this LEGAL action will always result in the same outcome.
 
For what it's worth . . .

.

image





Maine Revised Statutes


Title 25: INTERNAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Part 5: PUBLIC SAFETY
Chapter 252-A: FIREARMS REGULATION HEADING: PL 1989, c. 359 (new)
§2011. State preemption​

1. Preemption. The State intends to occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation concerning the regulation of firearms, components, ammunition and supplies. Except as provided in subsection 3, any existing or future order, ordinance, rule or regulation in this field of any political subdivision of the State is void.
2.
[ 1989, c. 359, (NEW) .]

3. Regulation restricted. Except as provided in subsection 3, no political subdivision of the State, including, but not limited to, municipalities, counties, townships and village corporations, may adopt any order, ordinance, rule or regulation concerning the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration, taxation or any other matter pertaining to firearms, components, ammunition or supplies.
4.
[ 1989, c. 359, (NEW) .]

3. Exception. This section does not prohibit an order, ordinance, rule or regulation of any political subdivision which, with the exception of appropriate civil penalty provisions, conforms exactly with any applicable provision of state law or which regulates the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction.

[ 1989, c. 359, (NEW) .]

5. Law enforcement agency. Nothing in this section limits the power of any law enforcement agency to regulate the type and use of firearms issued or authorized by that agency for use by its employees. For the purposes of this section "law enforcement agency" has the same meaning as set forth in section 3701.
6.
[ 1989, c. 502, Pt. D, §19 (NEW) .]

SECTION HISTORY

1989, c. 359, (NEW). 1989, c. 502, §D19 (AMD).

Data for this page extracted on 02/12/2008 09:40:06.
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.

Office of the Revisor of Statutes
7 State House Station
State House Room 108
Augusta, Maine 04333-0007​

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =​

Maine Revised Statutes​


Title 25: INTERNAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Part 5: PUBLIC SAFETY
Chapter 252: PERMITS TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARMS
§2001-A. Threatening display of or carrying concealed weapon

1. Display or carrying prohibited. A person may not, unless excepted by a provision of law:
2.
A. Display in a threatening manner a firearm, slungshot, knuckles, bowie knife, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous or deadly weapon usually employed in the attack on or defense of a person; or [2003, c. 452, Pt. N, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 452, Pt. X, §2 (AFF).]

B. Wear under the person's clothes or conceal about the person's person a firearm, slungshot, knuckles, bowie knife, dirk, stiletto or other dangerous or deadly weapon usually employed in the attack on or defense of a person. [2003, c. 452, Pt. N, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 452, Pt. X, §2 (AFF).]

[ 2003, c. 452, Pt. N, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 452, Pt. X, §2 (AFF) .]

2. Exceptions. The provisions of this section concerning the carrying of concealed weapons do not apply to:
A. Firearms carried by a person to whom a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued as provided in this chapter; [2003, c. 452, Pt. N, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 452, Pt. X, §2 (AFF).]
B. Disabling chemicals as described in Title 17-A, section 1002; [2003, c. 452, Pt. N, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 452, Pt. X, §2 (AFF).]
C. Knives used to hunt, fish or trap as defined in Title 12, section 10001; [2003, c. 452, Pt. N, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 452, Pt. X, §2 (AFF).]

D. Law enforcement officers, corrections officers and corrections supervisors as permitted in writing by their employer; [2005, c. 488, §7 (AMD).]

E. Firearms carried by a person engaged in conduct for which a state-issued hunting or trapping license is required and possessing the required license, or firearms carried by a resident person engaged in conduct expressly authorized by Title 12, section 11108 and section 12202, subsection 1. This paragraph does not authorize or permit the carrying of a concealed or loaded firearm in a motor vehicle; and [2003, c. 452, Pt. N, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 452, Pt. X, §2 (AFF).]

F. A firearm carried by a person to whom a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued by another state if a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued from that state has been granted reciprocity. The Chief of the State Police may enter into reciprocity agreements with 2 other states. Reciprocity may be granted to a permit to carry a concealed firearm issued from another state if:
(1) The other state that issued the permit to carry a concealed firearm has substantially equivalent or stricter requirements for the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm; and
(2) The other state that issued the permit to carry a concealed firearm observes the same rules of reciprocity in regards to a person issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm under this chapter. [2003, c. 452, Pt. N, §2 (NEW); 2003, c. 452, Pt. X, §2 (AFF).]
[ 2005, c. 488, §7 (AMD) .]
SECTION HISTORY
2003, c. 452, §N2 (NEW). 2003, c. 452, §X2 (AFF). 2005, c. 488, §7 (AMD).

Data for this page extracted on 02/12/2008 09:40:06.
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.

Office of the Revisor of Statutes
7 State House Station
State House Room 108
Augusta, Maine 04333-0007​

==============================================​

Portland's unenforceable ordinance :
"
Sec. 17-42. Same--Carrying at nighttime prohibited; exception. (a) No person shall have in his possession in or on any street, way, sidewalk, park or other public place, or in any motor vehicle on or in any street, way, sidewalk, park, or other public place between the time of sunset of any day and sunrise of the following day any loaded BB gun, air gun of any kind, gas pellet gun of any kind, firearm of any kind or description or any other such weapon. (b) This section shall not apply to any law enforcement official in the performance of his or her official duties or to any person defending himself or herself or his or her property. (Code 1968, § 703.6; Ord. No. 155-72, 5-15-72)"

And of corse this :

The adoption of title 25, § 2011 in 1989 rendered invalid many local ordinances regulating firearms. See, e.g., Hilly v. City of Portland, 582 A.2d 1213, 1215 (Me. 1990) (holding that section 2011 preempted a Portland ordinance prohibiting the carrying of guns at night). In addition to affecting regulations by cities and counties, section 2011 preempts firearms regulations by municipal agencies or authorities. See Doe v. Portland Housing Authority, 656 A.2d 1200, 1203-04 (Me. 1995) (finding that section 2011 preempted a municipal housing authority's leasing provision which prohibited the possession of firearms on the leased premises).

.
 
I believe that it is also legal to jump out of an airplane without a parachute but I would caution against it.[smile]

Is it? I thought suicide was against the law. Of course, it's the kind of thing that can only be prosecuted in the attempt (and obvious failure) than in the breach. [wink] Maybe not so in MA.
 
Re: For what it's worth....

I read the posted statutes a couple of times and I don't see where it explicitly states that open carry is permitted - but wading through the legalese, I could be wrong. Is everyone assuming that something that is not prohibited is allowed? I wouldn't bet my bank account and my right to carry on that premise.

I agree with earlier posters. Open carry in an urban environment just puts a spotlight on you. Why tip your hand? Carry concealed.
 
I read the posted statutes a couple of times and I don't see where it explicitly states that open carry is permitted

Uhh, that's the problem, or part of it. In most states open carry is legal, it's not "explicitly permitted" it's simply "not prohibited". Gun laws don't always tell you what you CAN do,
but only what you CANNOT do.

-Mike
 
Allowing someone elses rights to be taken away is the first step toward alowing yours to be taken away.
 
Looks like she wiped her whole journal. I think a more appropriate article title might be, "Uptight resident unfamiliar with law calls down massive police response on law-abiding Eagle Scout she didn't like the look of."

That "Title" reads much more accuratly... well said!
 
Back
Top Bottom