December 14, 2019

Maine “Constitutional Carry” Legislation Hangs in the Balance

Bloomberg and his anti-gun minions are continuing to barrage the Legislature with misinformation regarding “safety concerns.”  This anti-gun rhetoric is unfounded. In fact, the top law enforcement agency, The Maine State Police went on record supporting this legislation, citing the fact that over the past 30 years, fewer than 20 people per year have ever been charged with carrying a concealed weapon of any type.  Additionally, less than one tenth of a percent of the 36,000 applicants reviewed by the State police are denied.

Source: Maine “Constitutional Carry” Legislation Hangs in the Balance

Share

New York Times: “You Lie!”

*Editor’s Note* – It appears that the NRA is following the letter of Tennessee laws as they pertain to possession and use of a firearm by those attending the convention. What the convention organizers decide to do for their display weapons, is their business, although I’m struggling to come up with valid reasons to remove firing pins from guns because they are not for sale. I am open to comments and thoughts as to the reasoning.

So, yes, the New York Times is lying through their teeth on this issue. For clarification, however, let me explain that due to the anti-gun lobby, the right to keep and bear arms in Tennessee, is, in my opinion, seriously being infringed upon. According to Hand Gun Law dot US:

Open Carry is only legal for those with a valid permit/license to carry a concealed firearm.

Because of draconian laws, always supported by progressives like the New York Times, the ONLY people that may be allowed to attend the NRA convention, with their gun, must have a concealed carry permit THAT IS VALID IN TENNESSEE. (Tennessee does have permit reciprocity with other states.)

Shove that up your muzzle!

From the National Review:

“Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, and not one of them will be allowed to come armed with guns that can actually shoot. After all the N.R.A. propaganda about how “good guys with guns” are needed to be on guard across American life, from elementary schools to workplaces, the weekend’s gathering of disarmed conventioneers seems the ultimate in hypocrisy. There will be plenty of weapons in evidence at the hundreds of display booths, but for convention security the firing pins must be removed. So far, there has been none of the familiar complaint about infringing supposedly sacrosanct Second Amendment rights — the gun lobby’s main argument in opposing tighter federal background checks on gun buyers after the 2012 gun massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Bad Information Used In Attempt To Convince Voters On Concealed Carry

A bill is being proposed in the Maine Legislature that would do away with the concealed carry permitting process. One person, whose opinion was published in the Portland Press Herald, gives a list of reasons why this bill shouldn’t happen. His reasons are seriously flawed. Voters should understand that. Here’s a look at some of this person’s claims:

1. “The current system recognizes that concealed guns are dangerous and can be easily used for criminal purposes.” This simply is not true. The current system has been put in place because of ignorance of facts, along with totalitarians who just can’t resist stealing the right of self-defense from others. This statement assumes that we are to believe that when guns are concealed on a person, the person is more apt to commit a criminal offense. What attention is given to any laws by someone wishing to carry out a criminal offense?

2. “Polling consistently shows that more than 80 percent of Mainers support laws that improve gun safety..” Whether that statistic is true or not, doesn’t matter. It has nothing to do with the proposed legislation. It is a matter of one’s opinion, rather than fact, as to whether Maine residents consider concealed carry a matter of gun safety. Mainers may support gun safety, but it is quite doubtful that anything approaching 80% would oppose this proposed bill.

3. “…carrying a gun openly tends to attract the attention of bank guards, convenience store cashiers, police officers on patrol and the rest of us who are trying to keep our distance from people who aren’t emotionally stable.” Seriously? Isn’t this nothing more than the revelation of a person who lives in emotional fear over the day to day? Who walks about in fear, “to keep our distance from people who aren’t emotionally stable?” I think they designed padded rooms specifically for that kind of behavior.

4. “More guns do not make us safer.” In fact they do. Repeatedly it has been shown that an armed citizenry is safer than an unarmed one. Consider violent crime rates in places like Chicago and Washington, D.C. where guns are banned from everyone except the elite chosen few.

5. “They [guns] regularly kill and injure their owners and their owners’ children, spouses and partners.” Guns don’t do anything. They just lay where they are placed. From this person’s perspective, it would seem better to demand a ban on people. People kill people.

6. “We require a license to drive a car, in order to ensure that drivers are responsible. The current concealed-weapon system has the same rationale.” The author here forgets one very important difference between driving a car and having a right to keep and bear arms. Driving is a privilege in which a person must earn it. Keeping and bearing arms is a right guaranteed under the Second Amendment and self-defense is a right given us from God.

7. “…it protects all of us from guns in the wrong hands – or pockets.” No, it does not. To state that somehow requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, who consequently can hurt a lot of people, is misleading and irresponsible. It must be stated again that criminals have no interest in laws, especially public safety laws, created in error to convince people it will stop crimes. It just isn’t the truth.

The author went out of his way to show that other states have laws similar to the current requirements for concealed carry in Maine, but failed to mention states like Alaska and nearby Vermont. Those two states do not require a permit to carry a handgun concealed. Do these states have a higher rate of crime?

Share

State Proselytism Via Concealed Carry Permitting

Ammoland today has an article about how the Washington Post is attempting to wrongfully scare the hell out of people over the fact that some states are considering legislation that would bring back “Constitutional Carry” of weapons, vs. Concealed Carry and Open Carry. Constitutional Carry allows an American citizen to carry open or concealed without having to jump through hoops and get a license from the government.

Ammoland brings out an interesting point:

In saying these things, WaPo misses the fact that the ultimate purpose of many concealed carry permit classes around the country isn’t to make the citizen a better shot or more adept at drawing and shooting a gun to begin with.

Rather, the purpose is to lecture them on state laws regarding lethal use of force, thereby absolving the state of liability in a licensing situation.

But Constitutional Carry is another way to absolve the state of liability —it is perhaps the best way— for it makes responsibility and liability a personal matter once again.

Share

Concealed Carry: Keep Criminals Guessing

PHOTO

keepcriminalsguessing

Share

Maine Doesn’t Know How to Fix Gun Permit Application Backlog

Once again I am going to invoke the now semi-famous saying of my nephew at about the age of 4. He was told by his father that he had to finish his lunch and when he was done he could get down and go play. His father and I retired to the living room, followed soon after by his son who exclaimed, “Dad! I’ve finished my lunch……but don’t go look!”

Maine can’t figure out how to process more concealed carry permits……but don’t go look for a simple solution.

Even taking into consideration that nothing is at it appears on the surface, still one has to wonder if nobody passes math classes anymore. We know there is a lack of clear and independent thinking but consider this.

According to an article sent to me by a friend, that originated from WLBZ2.com, Maine is failing to follow the guidelines of law and getting applications for concealed carry processed in the allotted time of 30 days, or even up to 60 days in some cases.

The article says that Maine’s lawmakers will meet this fall to try to figure out how to address this problem.

Problem? What problem? And what’s to figure out?

The same friend who sent me the article did some math (and I’ll see if I’m smart enough to check his math) and it appears the solution is quite simple – that is unless the Maine State Police would rather keep the application fees for whatever they are currently using them for.

According to the Bangor Daily News, the Maine State Police, who handle all weapons permits where towns don’t do their own, has a backlog of 4,600 applications and is receiving 150 new applications each day. A new application fee is $35.00 and a renewal is $20.00. Also consider that the Maine State Police has ONE, that’s right, one person processing applications (must be a high priority).

Let’s take as a supposition that of the 150 applications per day being received, half are new applications and half are renewals. That would be 75 applications at $35.00, and 75 applications at $20.00. On average, each of the 150 applications would be accompanied by a fee of $27.50 or $4,125.00 per day in application fees.

Assuming the 150 applications per day data is meaning only during a five-day work week, that would be 750 applications per week. So, let’s see. 750 times $27.50 = $20,625.00 per week in application fees. We know there are 52 weeks in a year, therefore 52 times $20,625.00 = $1,072,500 per year.

I’m not sure how much the Maine State Police is paying the lone person now assigned to process concealed carry permits, but I believe it would be considerably less that a million bucks! And I can’t believe the remainder of that money is spent checking a person’s background.

What I would like to know first of all is what the MSP is doing with the million bucks. It would also seem logical, although I’ve been in business enough during my life span and hired employees to understand having two employees does not necessarily equal double the output, that hiring another person and paying them with some of the $1,072,500 would solve the problem. Maybe even then those hardworking lawmakers could cancel their brainstorming session this fall and actually spend their time doing something constructive…….oh, wait. My bad. I forgot I was talking about politicians.

My prediction? Don’t look for the MSP, i.e. the Maine Legislature to resolve this issue in any sensible fashion. I look for them to raise application fees, use the extra money to go on a junket to talk about how they can raise more money in order to be able to take early retirement.

Just saying!

Share

Petitions Being Circulated in Maine to End Concealed Carry Permits

As it should be, some in Maine are trying again to get rid of the requirement to apply for and obtain a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon. Two Maine citizens are passing petitions for a citizens’ initiative to go on a 2014 ballot.

cantread

Share

It Appears Maine Gun Owners Say Leave Us and Our Guns Alone

It may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back when the Bangor Daily News(BDN) sought the names and addresses of every single concealed carry permit holder in the state. Such a request did not set well with those permit holders and even those not holding a valid permit. I wrote yesterday that requesting and use of that information can only be for all the wrong reasons. The Bangor Daily News has since rescinded their request.

The uproar has grabbed the attention of many, including the New York Times that made note this request for information followed on the footstep of another news agency in New York that actually published the list of names from two counties and included an interactive map to go along with it, intimating that BDN had the same intent. BDN stated they did not intend to publish the information.

BDN’s actions seemed to be enough to set off a domino effect and prompt others to take action. The Governor, Paul LePage, has submitted emergency legislation that would temporarily block the release of permit holders’ information. This may be a good and timely move as it appears another group has requested the same personal information as did BDN.

George Smith, a freelance outdoor writer and who happens to write articles for the Bangor Daily News, says that maybe it’s time to do away with concealed carry permits.

For years I tried to convince legislators to repeal the law requiring permits to carry weapons in a concealed manner. The concealed carry permit system is illogical, expensive, and a waste of time and resources.

I’m all for that! Requirement of a concealed carry permit is unconstitutional and is nothing more than a glorified form of gun registration. It has always boggled my mind that gun owners mostly oppose any form of gun registration but find no problem with submitting to licensed carry. Vermont does not require a permit to carry concealed and Maine should follow suit.

On a related note, some gun owners I’ve heard from say we need to compromise and seek more reasonable gun limits. I say why? I think it’s time to not only hold firm to our already diminished rights but to push back even harder and regain ground already compromised away. Make no mistake, the gun grabbers aren’t interested in compromise for themselves; only if gun owners are willing to do it.

And while all this posturing is going on, Maine has a backlog of about 3 or 4 months to get a permit; and that estimate may be very low as I am aware of one instance of a person seeking to renew, and it took at least 6 months.

Maine people are an independent lot and sometimes it takes quite a bit to stir a fire under them. It appears the BDN, along with a tyrant for a president and other fascist politicians have kindled a large enough flame to prompt many Mainers to say, enough is enough. You ain’t messin’ with me and my guns!

Share

Bangor Daily News Asks For Then Rescinds Request For Concealed Carry Permit Holder Identification

Let’s establish a couple things that I think have been lost in the debate about whether the personal information about concealed carry permit holders should be available as public information. This is America. Under the Constitution, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Laws are created to protect the innocent (it is said). Furthermore, a licensed concealed carry person is a law-abiding individual, otherwise they would never be permitted to carry. It’s time these individuals were treated as lawful Americans and give them the respect they deserve instead of making them targets for people who hate guns and anyone and anything associated with them.

Considering the statement I just made, it is easy to conclude that any person or agency, i.e. Bangor Daily News in this case, that seeks the personal information on permit holders, are doing so for reasons that can only be wrong, political and potentially cause harm to law-abiding citizens.

Yesterday, Mainers discovered that one of the state’s largest newspapers, the Bangor Daily News(BDN), through Freedom of Information Act powers, sought the names and personal information of concealed gun permit holders across the entire state. Within 24 hours BDN rescinded its requests due to the outrage of many citizens, including the Governor.

In an “Editor’s Note” published in the Bangor Daily News, the editor writes:

What has been heartening, however, are the dozens of calls and emails from readers about this issue. We’ve had many good conversations about our request, our intentions, and our commitment to privacy and security of the data.

Unfortunately, these conversations have been trumped by rampant misinformation about our request, as well as swift political opportunism. It’s clear that as a state, and as a nation, we still have much to do to generate light in this debate, instead of heat.

This statement is dishonest and hypocritical. While BDN may be telling people it has no intention of publishing a list of permit holders and their personal information, believing somehow this exonerates them of any wrongdoing or places them above common indecency, they fail to tell the public exactly what they need the information for and what their plans are with it. In a veiled attempt at that, BDN says it needs the information to “study issues.” And then do what with the information and the results of biased studies one need ask? This is dishonest at best.

The hypocrisy comes when the BDN editor accuses people angry at BDN’s possible intentions as “trumped up by rampant misinformation”, not that the BDN has ever done such a thing. The editor also claims that some of those opposed to BDN’s request for permit holder information are participating in “swift political opportunism.”

What I’d like to know is what BDN would like to call their actions, to acquire the names and addresses of every concealed carry permit holder for purposes that can only be political and potentially harmful, if it isn’t “swift political opportunism.”

BDN says they, “regrets that its request for information may have been taken as a personal attack on concealed carry permit holders…” When we consider the history of what has become of this sort of requested information, and considering the fact these are all good, lawful and upstanding citizens, how else are these permit holders supposed to have taken BDN’s actions if not a personal attack?

And then we ask, “Why is someone proposing a law to make it illegal to obtain this private information?”

Share

Legislation to Protect Concealed Carry Permit Holders

A Maine lawmaker has proposed legislation that would make it impossible for the public to obtain the personal information of those people holding a valid Maine concealed weapons permit. Some favor this and some don’t. As the article points out Maine is only one of fourteen states that still allows public access to this information. Such legislation is not new nor is there any new arguments for or against limiting the public to information of this kind.

This Maine legislation was prompted by the incident in New York where a news agency decided to publish the names and addresses of concealed weapons permit holders in two counties. The arguments for and against this ignorant and violence-baiting move were the same old tired ones. Permit holders declared the list would give crooks a list of where to go to steal guns and some of the non permit holders said it provided crooks a list of homes NOT to go rob because they did have guns and that, they said, made them more vulnerable because robbers would know that. What was NOT readily discussed was the intent of the people publishing the list.

So, why would anyone, coming on the heels of the Newtown, Ct. school shootings and following a few days of emotionally charged debate on the right to keep and bear arms, publish to the public, a list of names and addresses of people who hold a legal right to carry permit? Is it because they want to let criminals know where and where not to find concealed carry holders? Perhaps! Was it to alert crooks as to which houses may not have any guns, therefore making it easier to rob? Doubtful! Or was it a malicious act to provide a targeted address for anyone emotionally worked up over their hatred of guns and gun owners that they would know where to target someone who owned a gun? Absolutely! And that’s the crime that’s not being talked about here.

This is nothing new. Put on your thinking caps or climb aboard the Wayback Machine with Mr. Peabody and Sherman, to a time when this nation was having a great debate about Freedom of Information Access and what should and should not be included in information to be made available to the public and why. If you will recall many stated that there would be abuses and that there would be some who would use this private information for things other than just needing to know. Little did we know back then that news journalists would publish names and address of people they hoped would somehow at least be embarrassed and worse would become specific targets of deranged and hateful people that are no better than the drugged up person who supposedly murdered 26 people at Sandy Hook.

It is the actions of such selfish, non thinking, hateful, unethical, power abusive people that have caused states to formulate legislation in order to stop this. In my mind, there is no other legitimate reason for a person or persons to expose people in this fashion other than to cause them harm, possibly death.

I recall in New Jersey, people who care more about animals than humans, harassed hunters enough that legislation had to be adopted to prevent these mentally ill people from going into the woods and doing harm to the bear hunters.

In Idaho, a man who holds the distinct honor of legally shooting the first gray wolf, during a state sanctioned hunting season, had his name and that of many other licensed Idaho wolf hunters published in order that they would become targets of people wanting to do harm to them. The poor guy received more death threats for killing a wolf than if he had threatened to kill a human. Such sick behavior has prompted the Idaho Congress to pass a law making it illegal to publish this information.

So, you can choose to debate the ins and outs of why its right or wrong to publish personal information about licensed gun owners, but let’s not forget to include in that debate the fact that the real reason anybody would do that is to cause another person harm. And that is wrong and should be dealt with.

Share