Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sick of the nanny-state politicians in RI, where we now live. I had been considering New Hampshire as well as Maine. But more and more, I'm liking this LePage guy you have up there. This law makes sense, as more often than not, I have to leave my firearm(s) behind when leaving the state for trucking work. I don't dare get caught, especially in Massachusetts.
My only concern is, how long before the 'greater Boston' types put another liberal in the governor's mansion? If it were up to me, I'd leave all the blue states entirely, and go find a red state somewhere. But 6 grandkids are hard to leave behind, so I'm looking for a compromise!
Could get even worse there. I heard on the radio today that one of the fine reps from the People's Republic of Cambridge (who just happens to own an insurance agency) has just introduced a bill which would require that all gun owners to list all their guns and carry a minimum of $250,000 insurance policy on each gun.
I've noticed over the years of dealing with my US friends and relatives that the 3 topics most likely to provoke an argument are religion, politics, and gun laws.......not necessarily in that order.
Discussion is great and debate is wonderful, but nasty argument complete with personal shots is pointless (and against the TOS).
Let's try and respect the opinions of others and keep things civil, please.
I wonder how many people (eligible/legal) in Maine have CC permits and how many actually carry. Has this ever been surveyed or published?
We're about to get a concealed carry law finally passed here in Wisconsin. They say WI and IL are the only two states right now that doesn't have it. Training will be one of requirements to get a concealed carry permit. The odd thing is that right now we can open carry without permit or training.
Regarding firearms in vehicles in employers parking lots, here in WI at FedEx, if we have a firearm in vehicle and park in lot, we are terminated. We have to park out on street. Actually, it doesn't make sense. If you want to retrieve that firearm, street is closer to building than parking lot. But I assume it's a company wide policy. I wonder how that's going to work in Maine. I wouldn't be surprised if the employer allows the firearm (by law) but restricts ammunition from being in vehicle, or something similar.
If you carry a concealed baseball bat you are limited to doing damage to anyone within the distance that you can swing the bat, or that they can run away or that you can run after them. If you hit them they can withdraw before you can swing it again. With hand gun, they have to get pretty far away, you don't have to chase them, and you can hit them with it(so to speak) 3 times a second until you run out of "hits". The anology is terribly innacurate.
Concealed carry permits are very helpful if you get stopped by a cop and you are carrying a gun concealed. Also, IN PA, if you are on your way to a target shoot or your cabin and you get stopped, you won't need to have your rounds in a separate locked case from your locked gun and on the other side of the car. And should you decide that YOU need defending, and should actually use the weapon to defend yourself, drawing it from inside your coat, you better wish you had a concealed carry permit.
You've changed the discussion with anologies that don't match. But that doesn't make any difference. Those who want some moderation in the carrying of guns everywhere are called "whining bigots" by the gun lobbyists, who are so entrenched in their viewpoint that people who disagree with them are immediately treated to insulting comments. What is so humorous is that the word bigot actually means someone who is so entrenched in their own viewpoint that they can't discuss the point rationally without immediately resorting to calling their opponent in the discussion by insulting names.
Just to be real here, I was not saying that YOU(reloop) were unable to discuss the subject rationally with someone(me for example) who actually owns projectile devices of various kinds both pressure actuated and gunpowder activated and who has a concealed carry permit. My comment was directed to other members of our respective groups who when an impasse is reached cannot let it go, and must resort to immediate insulting words. Oddly, its these kinds of insulting words given in bars all over the country that lead directly to the dangerous, inappropriate, and often deadly use of such projectile weapons.
Correct; however, realistically speaking, a person can purchase a weapon quite literally anywhere - regardless of how many 'regulations' are on the books. In one of my former retail jobs selling guns, I was required to fill out extensive background check paperwork on a person who passed with flying colors. Some years later I read his name in the paper having a felony assault conviction (not a gun). He nearly beat another man to death. Anecdotal? Sure. But it proves the point that a license is just a piece of laminated paper - period. He already legally owned guns (up until that conviction anyway).
So what does this mean for my law-abiding husband? He will probably and eventually get to pay for fees upon fees to prove himself innocent, while others spend 6 days in jail (with 4 suspended), for threatening the life of another with a gun? Enough already. Put more teeth into jail time as far as I'm concerned.
Any person who lacks any semblance of character, and is intent on pure evil, will acquire a handgun to suit his or her purposes quite easily. It really doesn't matter how many regulations are bestowed on those who actually have a conscience and who would never think to use their weapon for ill will.
As far as the baseball bat being a terrible analogy, I disagree. A baseball bat to the head will drop a human nearly as quickly as a bullet will. If a person whips a gun out and the 'victim' is quick thinking, they will move quickly. A moving target is just as difficult to strike with a gun (if not more so IMHO) as a person wielding a baseball bat is.
The element of surprise is what often gets most people as far as I'm concerned. Yes, a bullet can kill more quickly if it's on target, but regulating the weapon does little in my mind to correct the problem of the person yielding it.
I have seen the damage a baseball bat or a simple knife can inflict - live and in person. Furthermore, a simple kitchen knife stabbed directly into an artery is a death sentence - and in fairly quick order.
Regulating objects, instead of holding people accountable for their own actions with those objects, doesn't appear to be working at all as near as I can tell.
I remember back in the day......everybody I knew took their rifles or shotguns to school so we could hunt a bit after classes. I know times have changed, and I certainly don't think anybody needs to be lugging around an assault rifle even if we do have the right to bear arms. I know this is a hot topic tho.
I remember back in the day......everybody I knew took their rifles or shotguns to school so we could hunt a bit after classes. I know times have changed, and I certainly don't think anybody needs to be lugging around an assault rifle even if we do have the right to bear arms. I know this is a hot topic tho.
I used to walk to school hunting on the way and left my shotgun in the principal's office until after school...no one ever blinked an eye at that. They just asked me how the hunting was.
I wonder how many people (eligible/legal) in Maine have CC permits and how many actually carry. Has this ever been surveyed or published?
We're about to get a concealed carry law finally passed here in Wisconsin. They say WI and IL are the only two states right now that doesn't have it. Training will be one of requirements to get a concealed carry permit. The odd thing is that right now we can open carry without permit or training.
Regarding firearms in vehicles in employers parking lots, here in WI at FedEx, if we have a firearm in vehicle and park in lot, we are terminated. We have to park out on street. Actually, it doesn't make sense. If you want to retrieve that firearm, street is closer to building than parking lot. But I assume it's a company wide policy. I wonder how that's going to work in Maine. I wouldn't be surprised if the employer allows the firearm (by law) but restricts ammunition from being in vehicle, or something similar.
Open carry is legal here too, w/o permit or training. When I lived in MA I had a CC permit, and carried all the time...it was a combination of the fact that the work I did put me in a position of higher risk *and* the fact that I believe that all citizens should take responsibility for their own protection as the first line of defense, against both criminals *and* politicians who seek to reduce the rights of the citizens. (In several cases which have gone before the courts, where citizens have attempted to sue police departments for failing to protect them, the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect the citizens.)
There were a number of instances when being an armed citizen was fortuitous for myself and for others, though oddly enough, the majority of those incidents were not related to my work.
As far as an employer making such restrictions as you propose- they would be difficult to enforce. It really wouldn't be practical to search every employee's vehicle to determine if they were adhering to the restrictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mainebrokerman
guns in cars at places of employment, may make supervisors think twice about firing someone, or giving a harsh review..
Doesn't have that effect where I work. One of the supervisors tends to be hot-headed and confrontational, and actually tends to *escalate* conflicts with employees (which he has far too often)- and he got into such a conflict with an employee who was *known* to keep a weapon in his vehicle (created a bit of a stir one day when it was observed that he was wearing a shoulder holster under his jacket). After escalating the conflict to the point where they were both screaming at each other, the supervisor terminated the employee.
The company policy of my employer prohibits the carrying of weapons, despite the fact that one of the facets of our work actually makes us prime targets (and despite the fact that one of our facilities in another state was targeted and attacked for this very reason).
I would contend that there are *already* a people who have weapons in their vehicles at work, without the company's knowledge. The only thing that this type of law does, is to prevent the companies from creating/enforcing policies against the practice. I doubt that there will be any significant change in the habits of employees, as I would suspect that those employees who might be of a mind to keep a weapon in their vehicles *already* do so.
*I* have been seriously considering intentionally violating my employer's policy against weapons, since I often work alone and it is highly unlikely that if my location were attacked (as one of our other facilities was), even if I were able to make a 911 call, any police would arrive in time to 'save' me.
I am capable of being discrete about it, and if a situation were to arise where it became necessary to expose the violation I think I would prefer that the company have to make a decision to terminate me rather than allowing thugs to make the determination (in which case 'termination' could be decidedly more severe, and permanent).
I think that someone in an earlier post made a comment about guns in bars, but if memory serves, I believe that the law already forbids the carrying of weapons in establishments that serve alcohol even if one has a CC permit.
I am also reminded of a time when a friend invited me to accompany him to a bar, and told me to make sure that I took a gun. My response was to the effect that I had no intention of going to any bar where it was known in advance that one might be likely to need a gun. I should like to think that most reasonable, responsible and law-abiding citizens would tend to avoid such a thing.
I should also like to think that most reasonable people who carry weapons do as I tend to do, which is to actually seek to minimize conflict and *avoid* escalating a situation to the point where the use of said weapon might become necessary.
I believe that many of the people who are alarmed at citizens routinely carrying weapons are possessed of certain misconceptions, having visions of the 'wild, wild West' and gunfights on every corner. It isn't the case, and wasn't even the case back then and there. Sure, there were incidents (some of them highly publicized and embellished to mythical proportions) but in those times there was little 'law' and the times and places attracted those who had little respect for it. Even so, there weren't really 'gunfights on every corner' all the time, that's just 'Hollywood History'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
