AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine House approved a bill Monday that supporters said affirms Second Amendment gun rights and brings equity to a concealed-carry law that passed last year.
Opponents argued the bill, which loosens firearms restrictions for state employees, is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.
LD 1603 allows state employees to bring a gun to their workplace as long as they have a concealed weapons permit and keep the firearm locked in their vehicle and out of sight. It was modeled after a similar legislation that passed 73-71 last year that afforded the same right to private-sector employees.
Monday’s vote, 84-55, was not nearly as close and the debate on the floor also was decidedly less heated than the battle over LD 35 last year. Most Republicans voted in favor but a number of Democrats joined them.
The bill now goes to the Senate.
“All it does is reaffirm rights under the Second Amendment. This actually restricts it a little bit by saying you need a permit and saying you need to lock your car,” Rep. David Burns, R-Whiting, said Monday. “I don’t give up constitutional rights just because I become a state employee.”
Rep. Beth O’Connor, R-Berwick, said it has always been her understanding that the Constitution says “the right to bear arms shall never be questioned.”
Rep. Gary Plummer, R-Windham, the House chair of the Criminal Justice Committee, said Maine laws place restrictions on who can get a concealed weapons permit, so in that sense safeguards exist.
But Rep. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, the lead Democrat on the criminal justice committee, said the law does not take into consideration “a number of places where perhaps it might not be appropriate to leave a firearm,” including prisons. The thought, Haskell said, is that guns — even those locked in vehicles — might become available to those who shouldn’t have them.
Others bristled at that hypothetical situation.
“I’m trying hard to find the logic here. The logic seems to be that because our weapon could be stolen, that we should acquiesce to the thief rather than the citizen?” said Rep. Lance Harvell, R-Farmington.
Rep. Deborah Sanderson, R-Chelsea, also pointed out the bill “in no way allows guns to be carried inside.” Many state buildings, including courthouses and the State House, prohibit firearms.
During a public hearing in late January, a handful of people spoke in opposition to LD 1603, including Bill Harwood, representing Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence.
“There is no compelling reason for these employees to have guns at work in their car,” he said.
Peter Gore, vice president of government relations for the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, also opposed the bill on behalf of many employers he has spoken to since last year’s bill passed. Many, he said, feel less safe knowing there could be guns in their parking lots.
The bill passed along party lines in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, with five Democrats voting against it. In their minority report, Democrats indicated they not only hoped to kill the new bill but also overturn last year’s legislation granting rights to private-sector employees.
Also on Monday, the House rejected a bill that sought to prohibit Maine from granting a nonresident concealed weapons permit to anyone who has been denied a permit in another state with similar laws.
Maine State Police Lt. David Bowler testified during the public hearing on LD 1728 and said it would help prevent what he called “permit shopping.” He told the committee that Maine has plenty of safeguards to prevent questionable people from getting permits but “our concern is the one unqualified person that gets by us.”
The bill passed through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, but House Chairman Gary Plummer said Monday he no longer thinks the law in necessary.
His House colleagues agreed.
“’There is no compelling reason for these employees to have guns at work in their car,’ he said.”
*************************************************
I have one, It’s called the 2nd Amendment.
Not that I really care whether someone keeps a gun locked in their car or not, but you’ve cited an amendment that guarantees rights. It’s not a “reason.” You could say “self-defense, in case I get carjacked on the way home” or “because it makes me feel strong” or you could say what I think you’re really saying, which is “because I want to and now I can, so there.”
Well if it is a right as you are asserting, doesn’t that mean there shouldn’t need a reason, so in essence the second amendment becomes the reason that they should be able to have a firearm in their vehicle if they so choose.
Thank you for clarifying my post. :-)
Well, I still think that the “right” to do something doesn’t constitute a “reason” to do it, but I get what you’re saying.
Do you feel the same way about the right to free speech?
Basically, yeah. Let me put it this way: I have the right, guaranteed in the US by the Constitution, to speak freely in a public way about my ideas, opinions, whatever. I am under no obligation to do so, but if I have a reason…say, I feel strongly about a particular subject and want to talk about it…then I have the right to do so.
A small distinction, I know, but there you go.
I agree with you completely and in the case you stated YOU were able to choose what you were going to say, and YOU were able to pick the reasons that were important to you. I do understand that there are some very minor limitations placed on your freedom of speech but can you imagine the outcry if any of the limitations placed on the 2nd amendment were placed on the 1st amendment?
How about this one. No public speaking in Chicago or Washington DC.
“The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.” – Woollard v. Maryland
I like to carry mine with me so that no one can get it if they break in to my home while I’m away or into my car while I’m not in it ! Is that OK ? I carry it out in the open , is that Ok with you. I won’t use it unless I fear for my life. Is that OK. .. Call me when your in a jam !
I don’t care when or where you carry your gun, so long as it never becomes a threat to me or anyone else who is minding their own business. And I get myself out of my own jams, thanks.
Now this is a fact filled answer. Thank you!
Here is my reason, because I can. The 2nd amendment is the reason I can, so through the transitive property the 2nd amendment is the reason I carry.
Yeah…if you are the state militia. Have you read the 2nd Amendment?
No, the US Supreme Court has declared the right to bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to be a personal right. See D.C. v. Heller.
Yeah…a court stacked with right wing goons…The same type of goons who once ruled Dred Scot couldn’t sue in court because he wasn’t a human being. Times will change, once the right wingers muck it up enough.
Those were Democrat justices that ruled on that.
history and fact is not necessay for uncledrinky
he drinks his way to his own reality, where unicorns roam free and little white fairies protect us all from the dangers of the world…
It really makes no difference who decided…
According to the drunken uncle it does.
Yes, it does. It was the Democrats who soiled their pants, now let them stew in those filthy drawers.
It was ‘esteemed’ Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) who was elected Exalted Cyclops of his local KKK chapter. Let them sit uncomfortably in THAT fecal matter as well.
Let’s face it, folks. Democrats are poopstink.
And HOW!
Moved location.
lies. lies. lies.
That’s “Law Abiding” right wingers to you…
You may want to update your own knowledge of the right to bear arms.
“In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.”
Yeah…a court stacked with right wing goons…The same type of goons who once ruled Dred Scot couldn’t sue in court because he wasn’t a human being. Times will change, once the right wingers muck it up enough. I’ll let ya know when I need some knowledge regarding the Constitution.
How wrong of you! Democrats ruled the majority decision in Dred Scot. The two dissenters were Whigs/Republicans. The terms conservative and liberal are very relative. Because you think of freeing slaves as a “liberal” concept does not change the fact that the Republican party is rooted in abolition.
Glory days of the Republican party are long gone vis our minority population . You’re not much of a student if you haven’t figured that out. Dred Scott decision and abolition and immediate garrisonian emancipation are dead issues. Racial equality a subject that makes todays republicans squirm. But guns, guns are great.
Guns ARE great when you need them.
Only liberals would bring a knife to a gunfight.
Only Republicans think guns are more important than people.
Only idiots think that submitting to criminals is more important than self-defense.
to idiots there are apparently only those two choices.
Do all of us a favor. If you ever are attacked, exercise the other options as you see fit.
We’ll stick with what works.
Wow…….outstanding…….I’m impressed………….NOT
If you think …even for a second, that making sure that people have guns, and then make sure when those same guns …that you protect are used against others……there’s a problem. The amendment gives the citizenary to utilize firearm to protect, it did not give them the right to use those rights indiscrimnately, itf does not give you the right to say that “people kill people”……..that’s not the intent, and you know it.
No, it’s the First Amendment that “gives” us the right to say that, not the Second.
Sheesh.
Don’t try to correct him/her/it.
It’s not worth the effort and won’t do any good.
Guns are for *Protection* and/or Killin’.The Killing depends on Which End of the Gun and Bullets YOU are Looking at !
If the “Perp” is in the ***Space Inhabited*** by Me, be it Property, home, car, place of Business, sidewalk, etc., Key words = ****Space Inhabited**** and I feel Reasonably Threatened, then My Obligation is to determine the Correct response to said threat.
Most important perspective here is to view certain cases as life threatening or not.
Once a person makes the decision to unholster a firearm, whether it is discharged or not, their life
will be impacted immediately.
Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE3. A person in possession or control of a dwelling place or a person who is licensed or privileged to be therein is justified in using deadly force upon another person:A. Under the circumstances enumerated in section 108; or [1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person, who the person reasonably believes:
(1) Has entered or is attempting to enter the dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within the dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) Is committing or is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place. [2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).][ 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD) .]
4. A person may use deadly force under subsection 3, paragraph B only if the person first demands the person against whom such deadly force is to be used to terminate the criminal trespass and the trespasser fails to immediately comply with the demand, unless the person reasonably believes that it would be dangerous to the person or a 3rd person to make the demand.
So, *IF* I have determined the issue has become detrimental to my well being ( or those for which I am responsible) and the criminal does not respond Immediately and Appropriately to my Demands ( I HAVE A GUN, lay face down on the floor NOW, spread your legs and move your arms straight out from your side palms up, DO NOT MOVE !!!, now call 911) then said *Criminal* has chosen His/Her outcome of the situation which *He/She* instigated from the beginning of the state of affairs.
Do or DIE,,, it is Totally the “Perps” decision to live or NOT !
Two to the Chest, One to the Head, Two knocks ’em Down, One makes ’em Dead !
Dead men don’t tell lies. :=}
–The Republican party was, like I already said, founded on the issue of abolition.
–The Dred Scot opinion, like I already said, was only opposed to by two Whig/Republicans.
–The Brown vs. Board opinion was campaigned for and written by
Republican C.J. Earl Warren.
–Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt signed the executive order that relocated and detained Japanese Americans. (45 years later, Republican President Ronald Reagan
officially apologized on behalf of the U.S. Government)
–Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower implemented military integration. He also fought for and won black voting rights (Civil Rights Act of 1957), which was opposed by Senators Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy (Democrats, in case you forgot).
Are there racist Republicans? Yes! Are there racist Democrats? Yes! But in reality, Republicans led the way to civil rights. Democrats fought them tooth and nail for a century. The party is so behind on the issue that they address race as if it’s still 1960. The Republican party does not “squirm” at the mention of racial equality, they “squirm” at the countless attempts to prevent it. Republicans “squirm” at the thought of racial quotas at work and school, race-based factions, and special treatment based on any skin color in 2012. You speak on the basis of your opinion. I, on the other hand, speak on the basis of historical truths– because I am a whole LOT of a student. Your cheap insults only prove you have nothing relevant to add to this discussion.
Your historical contortions ignore, the squalid republican engineered end of reconstruction, southern whites leaving the democratic party in droves after voting rights and democratic fueled civil rights support on the federal level and the increasingly exclusivity of whites only America in republican ideology since then; and certainly put one in mind of the stereotypical Scotsman, doing the limbo to get into a pay toilet.
I read with interest of my “cheap insults” of opinions being splattered against the unassailable wall of the “historical truths” that flow effortlessly from your lips. Nonetheless. I offer my worthless opinion, that from your own glowing sense of self worth, you are almost certainly blessed with a fulness and abundance of weighty matter, not often encountered. Probably a marriage made in heaven:)
Sir, are you calling me fat? After you already told me I’m “not much of a student”? Excuse me while I laugh my head off. You are something else! You don’t know me. You certainly don’t know what I look like or what my GPA is. Your long, jumbled run-on sentences are impossible to decipher. The entire first paragraph of your previous comment was one sentence. Is that your way of hiding the fact that you present neither fact nor argument? Once again, you rely on personal attacks– which proves you have nothing valid to say.
Don’t you know you have to be a bleeding heart liberal in order to be a good student…*rolls eyes*
Yes… yes…
Such a GOOD little thrall, isn’t he?
HUH????????????
Learn something new every day. You can punctuate yourself to relevance, huh. “Sir are you calling me fat?” No just full of it. I can tell that sight unseen:)
Look, it’s this simple: “Liberals are people who stand on their heads and insist that the world is upside-down.”
You take it from there.
No, “protected class” jurisprudence that flies in the face of the plain language of the 14th Amendment is what makes us squirm. It should you, too.
“Republican party is rooted in abolition.” … then Prohibition, Herbert Hoover and GW Bush.
Just saying.
Hey!
Drinken Uncle
Maine Constitution!
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Get over it!
SSSSoooooooooooooo wrong! The court said he could not sue because he was not a citizen. It NEVER made a ruling that he wasn’t a human being!
Funny, the only goons I know are left wingers – go figure.
There has been exhaustive analysis of the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, from Judge Sam Cummings and appellate judge William Garwood in the U.S. 5th Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson, to Judge Ricardo Urbina’s and Judge Silberman’s dismissal of D.C. v. Heller in the U.S. 3rd Circuit, and finally to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s exegesis and scathing woodshedding of Justice Stevens in the final Heller opinion. I believe the exact characterization he used was “…worthy of the mad hatter.” Heh-heh. Yes. Quite.
All of these jurists thoroughly vetted the Individual Rights model of the Second Amendment, and have decided that you are unequivocally, DEFINITELY wrong. It just so happens that they all are in agreement with the Framers, whose handiwork regarding this issue endured unmolested for 150 years.
You people must, finally, learn to take “No.” for an answer.
Guns are for *Protection* and/or Killin’.
The Killing depends on Which End of the Gun and Bullets YOU are Looking at !
If the “Perp” is in the ***Space Inhabited*** by Me, be it Property, home, car, place of Business, sidewalk, etc., Key words = ****Space Inhabited**** and I feel Reasonably Threatened, then My Obligation is to determine the correct Response to said threat.
Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
3. A person in possession or control of a dwelling place or a person who is licensed or privileged to be therein is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. Under the circumstances enumerated in section 108; or [1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person, who the person reasonably believes:
(1) Has entered or is attempting to enter the dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within the dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) Is committing or is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place. [2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).][ 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD) .]
4. A person may use deadly force under subsection 3, paragraph B only if the person first demands the person against whom such deadly force is to be used to terminate the criminal trespass and the trespasser fails to immediately comply with the demand, unless the person reasonably believes that it would be dangerous to the person or a 3rd person to make the demand.
So, *IF* I have determined the issue has become detrimental to my well being ( or those for which I am responsible) and the criminal does not respond Immediately and Appropriately to my Demands ( I HAVE A GUN, lay face down on the floor NOW, spread your legs and move your arms straight out from your side palms up, DO NOT MOVE !!!, now call 911) then said *Criminal* has chosen His/Her outcome of the situation which *He/She* instigated from the beginning of the state of affairs. Do or DIE,,, it is Totally the “Perps” decision to live or NOT !
Two to the Chest, One to the Head, Two knocks ’em Down, One makes ’em Dead !
Dead men can’t tell lies
Barry Hirsh Today 06:22 PM in reply to poormainah2012
“Dead men can’t tell lies.” Yes, they can! After all, they are “lying” in the grave in perpetuity, are they not?
GUFFAW!!!
GovernmentIStheproblem Today 07:58 AM in reply to poormainah2012
A man after my own heart.
Nummies who claim they know anything the Constitution are contagious in the right wing. Just because the Supreme Court says so doesn’t make it so. Opinions are like buttholes.
Funny but when it comes to abortion you guys are all about how the Supreme Court decision matters.
Pick and Choose much?
Yes, it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So we should allow current incarcerated inmates to have 9mm handguns in their cells??? We seem to infringe on that though…That’s the problem with the literal crowd…they literally don’t know anything.
LOL….since when do we consider felons citizens?
Do we afford them the right to vote?
talk about the ‘literal’ crowd and ‘not knowing anything’!
how’s the Allen’s this evening Uncle?
LOL, well yes we do!, please check the law. Maine is one of two states that let prisoners VOTE! You should see the NAACP at the prison and jails signing up prisoners to vote!
You conveniently left out the qualifying language: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. For you crazy strict constructionalists of the US Constitution I ask you if the right to bear arms is not to be on any condition, why did our forefathers add the seemingly unnecessary qualifying language?????
look at the MAINE constitution…that is what we are discussing here, don’t let the libtards fool yah…they’re highly uneducated on civic matters, it’s because they go to ‘school’…
If you Repugnuts can follow along, you’ll see my response was to captain pain who was clearly quoting the US Constitution.
And you are still wrong, Subject!
Held:…
…(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
You need a remedial class on sentence construction and reading comprehension. No matter how you beat that horse, it won’t rise from the dead.
You didn’t answer the question. You just told me what a right wing Court ruled.
It is you who apparently doesn’t understand grammatical construction. The prefatory clause states the primary purpose for enshrining the right, but it doesn’t affirmatively limit the right to the fulfillment of that purpose.
The prefatory clause cannot stand on its own. The operative clause does. The prefatory clause states a reason for the right to remain protected, the operative clause states that it will not be infringed. The right exists independent of the prefatory clause.
If you bothered to read that “right wing nutjob” opinion in its entirety, you would actually expose yourself to the proof for its conclusions. The U.S. 5th Circuit and U.S. 3rd Circuit judges and appellate courts did their own research, found the same results, and expounded on them in detail.
You run your mouth pretty good, but you haven’t a real clue as to the subject matter you attempt to portray.
Read some opinions, and come to Jesus, my Brother. [snicker]
What is the purpose of a “prefatory clause” if not as a limit or expansion of the “operative clause”? Is it “prefatory” for no particular reason? Or did the authors of the majority opinion in Heller choose to ignore the conditional nature of the “prefatory clause” in order to reach their desired result? It wasn’t the first time (nor will it be the last) that the fallible human beings who sit as Supreme Court Justices ignored logic.
As all of us are fallible (even those who refuse to admit it), why should our opinions on the issue ever be considered a valid response to the fact-seeking question: What purpose is served by keeping a gun locked in your car while you are at work? If you keep a gun locked in your car why would your employer ever know about it? (Unless of course you felt the need to sound off about having it there).
This proposed law seems to be much ado about nothing; another distraction to keep the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum ranting and spitting at each other.
Sadly. the US Supreme Court has ruled that those words don’t mean anything.
ME Constitution, Article 1, Section 16: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Do you know how to read?
Sounds like you are questioning the fact that “EVERY CITIZEN has a right to keep and bear arms”
Your very question is unconstitutional!!
Your comment is wrong and you know it.
This will clear a few things, but there have been cases where there is a more clarification on what is to be interpreted:
There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by themAs passed by the Congress:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.As ratified by the States:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Great use of legislative time GOP! I guess jobs aren’t important nor balancing the budget. GOP = INCOMPETENT ABUSERS OF POWER.
Here’s a better one for you to rant about. LD1815
An Act To Establish “The Dirigo March” as the Official March of the State
The gun toting, paranoid loonies that are drawn to stories like these – the types that rant about 2nd amendment right and rampant home invasions and the need for ‘self-defense’, are the reason I would consider buying a gun. In fact, the only reason I would ever need a gun, is because people have guns.
woah, wait a minute, you’re telling me that if there was someone threatening your family at knifepoint you wouldn’t call the police?
I mean, why do we call the police anyways?
Could it be that they have…. GUNS
“I never need a gun, they’re bad, people shouldn’t have them”
“Help! police! there’s someone breaking in! come help me! you have guns!”
You forgot “Go ahead honey give him what he wants , it’ll only last a little while”
Yeah. Or, “Puke and he’ll be so disgusted he’ll go away and leave you alone.”
Let me know what parking lots you all are going to be hanging out in and I will be sure not to be there.
i bet you’d be shocked to find out that 1 out of 10 people in maine carry a concealed weapon?
Careful there. If she realizes that she is going to need some clean panties.
That makes one in ten Mainers paranoid, or anthropophobic, or sociophobic, or erotophobic, or paraphobic or medomalacuphobic. How many of those one in teners have ever needed to use a gun to protect themselves, their property, their family? Rest my case.
Have you ever needed a fire extinguisher or smoke detector in your house?
Why have it if you’ve never used it?
What are the chances that you’ll ever have to use a fire extinguisher?
I certainly have never had to in my many years alive.
But i have it “just in case” because i’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
I rest my case.
I think you proved my point. The need for guns is very low and the stats suggest that having one in your home puts you at greater risk for being hurt by one. But if you feel better having one in your home that is up to you. But I would feel better if you were not sitting in parking lots with one.
could you please reference the particular “stats” or articles that you’re getting your information from?
I’d really like to read more into it.
If you are a subject then that’s your choice, if you are a citizen you wouldn’t care…
Of course I care, or I would not be posting here. We do not live in the 1700s anymore. The chances of my losing my live by an act of violence by a gun toting person is very low. But your chance of hurting yourself or another with your gun toting is much higher, or so ‘they’ say.
do you have any facts to back up your unfounded claims?
no? didn’t think so.
Just do a little search on the web for yourself. You should see what I saw. How many times have you had to use your gun to protect yourself, your property, your family, your dog? Just proved my claim, yes?
Sez you. There are a plethora of local and regional self-defense with firearms stories in the news, every day.
Every. Day.
In most cases, the gun wasn’t fired because the attacker(s) got their butts in the wind, fast.
I don’t know where you’re looking, but those stories are out there daily.
Here’s a sample from 2008:
On April 2, Virginia “Sue” Devoe was attacked in her Clintonville, Ohio home. Her former boyfriend, James Ryan McVey, kicked in the front door, dragged her through the house by her hair, and repeatedly kicked her. Then he attempted to kidnap her. That’s when Devoe’s 91-year-old neighbor came to her aid.
Shirley Becraft drew his handgun and shot the intruder. McVey’s death ended years of violent assaults on Devoe. A local investigator praised Becraft, saying, “It’s hard to know where she would be now if he hadn’t [shot McVey].”
On March 18, in Orange City, Florida, Robert Shockey waited inside Blockbuster Video for his son, who worked there, to close the store. The store had been the scene of a violent armed robbery a month before. Shockey, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, saw two ski-masked robbers burst through the doors. One carried a hunting rifle and threatened an employee.
Shockey pulled his handgun and shot the gun-wielding assailant. When the second robber reached for the rifle that his accomplice had dropped, Shockey shot him.
Police not only ruled the shooting self-defense, they stated that they planned to give Shockey a “good citizenship award.”
And so it goes.
On March 5, Bethan Scutchfield, a 71-year-old invalid from Colville, Washington fatally wounded a stranger who broke into her house and knocked her to the floor.
On March 6, an 83-year-old San Antonio woman shot a teenager as he tried to break into her home.
On March 3, in Pembroke Pines, Florida, two robbers pointed semiautomatic weapons at businessman Corey Dacres but the victim pulled his own gun and shot both of them. Dacres, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was not injured.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera….
Now, *ahek*, you were saying……?
“We do not live in the 1700s anymore.”
Please describe the difference between being assaulted in the 1700s and now.
We’ll wait….
we wouldnt want the disgruntled state employee to have to go all the way back home for his gun if conditions are that bad maybe we should have security like the court houses do.
The “disgruntled state employee” would have brought the gun to work anyway regardless of the law if that was their intent.
great, now they can go and do target practice during their three hour break
As Adolph Hitler once said ” you are only as high as the politicians you elect.
They can only take you to where their level of consciousness is at ”
As some BDN readers already know this has been the mantra for Rep Gary Pummer
of Windham. Of course Mr Plummer would flesh that out by saying ” you are
only as high as the moonbats FBI agent Richard DeSauliers and Diebold allow you to elect” eh?
Two mind suppositories for your viewing please.
Yes I have a permit to carry a concealed sense of humor.
1st read
http://www.ticklethewire.com/2012/03/12/woman-who-claims-to-be-fed-agent-with-treasury-arrested-in-suburban-detroit-for-disorderly-conduct/
Fed Agent with Treasury Arrested in Suburban Detroit for Disorderly Conduct
2nd read
http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Judge_Orders_Justice_Dept_to_Release_Document_about_FBI_Helping_Ronald_Reagans_Political_Career_120311
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Judge Orders Justice Dept. to Release Document about FBI Helping Ronald Reagan’s Political Career
He also said ”
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.”
Yeah…let’s put handguns in schools…because that would be a great idea…and maybe we can give handguns to prison inmates…since their rights to bear arms shall not be infringed…………
That is way out of topic.
That isn’t what’s important to anti-rights people. They’ll drag everything from the washtub to the kitchen sink into the conversation to misdirect the subject and hide their intellectual impotence.
Your comment is a clear illustration of how ignorant of this subject you are.
Or, perhaps, your only intent here is to inflame.
Oh puulease!
yes, felons are citizens, that’s precisely why we put them in prison and separate them from the rest of us, because we should treat them like everyone else!
more liberal mind drivel from a guy who’s apparantly been hammering Allen’s for about 12 hours straight now…
The gun bunnies won’t rest until America is just like Yemen. Blessed with a population of heavily armed, khatt chewing, citizens. Mindful of, and imbued with, certain inalienable rights to tote what they have the strength to drag around, bring up, aim, and fire. A Nirvana of twitchy trigger fingers, weak minds, and well developed biceps.
Dude, that is so over-the-top that I can’t believe even YOU subscribe to it.
Oh, wait….
…you DO?
And you aver that WE are nuts.
Hmnph.
Leaving one’s firearm secured and locked in a vehicle while working, IMHO, is not the same thinking as “bringing guns to the work-place”…..what is left in a person’s car while parked in an employer’s lot while at work, or any parking lot for that matter, seems to be the business of the car owner and not anyone else…..
100% agreed. A fully inaccurate headline intended to draw unnecessary outcry from the left.
is there any other fashion of ‘outcry from the left’?
in my experience, it’s pretty much always unnecessary
Valid point :)
And from the right.
Once, I allowed one of my fetuses to carry a concealed weapon.
I wound up in that “Alien” movie. Don’t ever get on a spaceship with Sigourney Weaver.
Not without your sidearm, of course………..
What the h e double L would our law makers waste so much time debating such a useless , meaningless bill and put it into law ! Oh yeah, thats what we pay them to do and have done so for a long time !
guns are made for one reason to kill. Right to lifers are all about killing people. Lets cheer at the death penalty. Im so glad there against healthcare for people and are ignoring the homeless seems very christian to me.
Maybe you would like to make abortions retroactive then?
I would….and I’d like to talk with Joe Johnson’s mother….perhaps, make her an offer
After meeting Nancy Pelosi back in 2009, Pope Benedict is still contemplating on that retroactive part.
Who could blame him?
Do some research – most firearm incidents do not involve discharging the firearm. States that have enacted “shall issue” carry permits saw their violent crime rates decline. So rape, assault, and murder rates all go down as a result. Advocate against concealed carry and you advocate for violent crime.
Guns are for *Protection* and/or Killin’.
The Killing depends on Which End of the Gun and Bullets YOU are Looking at !
If the “Perp” is in the ***Space Inhabited*** by Me, be it Property, home, car, place of Business, sidewalk, etc., Key words = ****Space Inhabited**** and I feel Reasonably Threatened, then My Obligation is to determine the correct Response to said threat.
Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
3. A person in possession or control of a dwelling place or a person who is licensed or privileged to be therein is justified in using deadly force upon another person:
A. Under the circumstances enumerated in section 108; or [1975, c. 740, §26 (NEW).]
B. When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other person, who the person reasonably believes:
(1) Has entered or is attempting to enter the dwelling place or has surreptitiously remained within the dwelling place without a license or privilege to do so; and
(2) Is committing or is likely to commit some other crime within the dwelling place. [2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD).][ 2007, c. 173, §20 (AMD) .]
4. A person may use deadly force under subsection 3, paragraph B only if the person first demands the person against whom such deadly force is to be used to terminate the criminal trespass and the trespasser fails to immediately comply with the demand, unless the person reasonably believes that it would be dangerous to the person or a 3rd person to make the demand.
So, *IF* I have determined the issue has become detrimental to my well being ( or those for which I am responsible) and the criminal does not respond Immediately and Appropriately to my Demands ( I HAVE A GUN, lay face down on the floor NOW, spread your legs and move your arms straight out from your side palms up, DO NOT MOVE !!!, now call 911) then said *Criminal* has chosen His/Her outcome of the situation which *He/She* instigated from the beginning of the state of affairs. Do or DIE,,, it is Totally the “Perps” decision to live or NOT !
Two to the Chest, One to the Head, Two knocks ’em Down, One makes ’em Dead !
Dead men can’t tell lies.
A man after my own heart.
“Dead men can’t tell lies.”
Yes, they can! After all, they are “lying” in the grave in perpetuity, are they not?
GUFFAW!!!
No, “right-to-lifers” by and large are all about stopping miscreants from violently victimizing them. They are all about protecting INNOCENT life, not vicious scumbags.
what a job creator
I’m glad they are so concerned about this issue but when will the Legislature deal with the Lepage administrations flagrant violation of the Maine constitution. I’m talking about the $17 million dollars he illegal stole from the state treasury and gave to his friends at Brookfield Management in Toronto Canada.
Specifically, Article IX, Section 14 of the state Constitution which requires that before the state can take on any liability greater than $2 million, the Legislature must approve of the action by a two-thirds vote and then it must be approved in a general election by Maine voters.
Lets sue the pea brain for damages!
we would have to get in the long line in order to sue Lepage.
Glad I left State Employment before a shootout occurs. Crazy Crazy….Too bad the Legislature doesn’t feel the same way in allowing State Employees the right to run for the Legislature without having first to quit their job. Everyone else can run for the Legislature without quitting their jobs why not State Workers?
Give me a break! Crazy gunmen are not law-abiding citizens. He or she will commit the act regardless of state law. Mass murderers do not say “Darn, it’s illegal to keep a weapon in my parked car. Guess I won’t open fire on my coworkers afterall.”
This is just great! Well at least until some State worker becomes unhinged (Thinking of DD parking lot at this moment…yes these things do and have happened) then blamo! Then once again most folks will be saying, “Why did we think this was a good idea?” It’s always good to stir up this subject just before election time. I wonder when they’ll start up on birth control and contraception? Opps been there done that last week. It’s never ending!
Yeah, because someone going on a shooting spree would really care about a gun law.
Or be stopped in time by a school cop who is at the other end of the building, or outside in the parking lot.
The man who pulled a gun at Dunkin Donuts was not on the clock at a government building, so let’s not compare apples to oranges. However, do you actually think a law banning him from keeping a gun in his car during the work day would have stopped him from pulling that gun?? Not a chance. Totally irrelevant.
“Stopped him?” No I don’t. But when some wacko takes out 10-20 coworkers I’ll be able live with piece of mind knowing that I opposed all “potential” unstable (Which probably includes most folks) folks from carrying lethal weapons into areas where people are often placed in highly stressful/emotional situations. Doing so is quite simply irrational. Why? Because of reasonable prudence strongly suggest that we can safely predict the bad outcome I’ve presented above and once it occurs all those who made it possible to happen will have “some” share in accepting liability and negligence of allowing it to happen in the first place. I’m simply glad that’s not going to be me.
I’ll (Attempt) to cut you off here by telling you I’m not anti gun and if you need one wherever you go then all the power to you. However, for the reasons noted above, just don’t expect me to “support” something that is obvious fraught with predictably negative outcomes. Schools, planes, courtrooms, divorce lawyer’s offices, Political offices/government functions, and any other tense workplaces are just a few such places where guns and nice happenings just don’t gel well together. We can at least agree on that, right?Lastly, are we going to pretend that this bill isn’t just a tad bit silly and brought up NOW simply to stir up the whole gun debate again?
I have got to disagree with you , most of the time I general agree with your posts however,
Someone who intends to go hunting after work and wants to be able to keep a gun in his / her vehicle should not be infringed, nor should the individual who wants to defend his / her self against an attack from some one on the way home.
That is why the state law is,
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Thanks, I often “Like” your comments as well. Let’s start with humor. You can always skip work and just go hunting all day. Have you really ever needed to defend yourself on the way home? I’ve met up with some angry jerks and bad drivers but generally resolve the situation with a smile and a wave (No not usually with a finger, but yes sometimes both wave and smile are a bit sarcastic). I’m thinking that current State Law you cite in Section 16 doesn’t allow you to bear arms “Anywhere” you like (Such as state office building parking lots). Logic would seem to dictate that there should be some limitations, yes?
The only real question to ask and answer would be; Is there ANYPLACE you would consider a bad place to be allowed to bring lethal weapons into? Since there’s never going to be a good black and white answer to that question (That most folks will agree on) this debate will always provide a flame to anger those who for whatever reason want such weapons on their body or at their sides 24/7 and those who find such a need or be in the presence of such weapons wherever they go just a tad bit unsettling. I say yes, logic suggest that there are some places not to bring weapons (Include Casinos and Churches to my list above). If you say no that’s fine. work with your legislators to make it happen. If no restrictions are the final outcome, I’m old enough and secure enough to move someplace less shall we say, “tense.”
SEE! This silly bill (Abortion and contraception and other conservative hot button social issues are up next) has successfully begun folks arguing about guns again! Yuk! Good luck Dlbrt, be careful on that ride home! Try “smilin” and “wavin”, or simply drive fast.
” Is there ANYPLACE you would consider a bad place to be allowed to bring lethal weapons into”
in the right hands? no.
let’s take school for instance.
Why not let the principals and teachers, that we already trust with our childrens safety, to carry a concealed weapon?
allow them the tools to protect our children effectively against any threat?
The only “Right hands” that I’d trust in a schools (Your “For instance”) are probably police officers (But is this where the gun folks want this conversation to go, huh?). It’s funny how so many folks don’t trust their children’s educations with educators that thay can’t choose, yet in a flash when it comes to guns they want those same educators to gear up fer bear. I love guns, but not in those places noted. Keep pushing for what you want, that’s your right. Again, I can always move to a place less “Tense.” Perhaps to NYC? Always loved my many stays there.
Why is that?
What’s the difference between police officers and teachers?
They’re both men and women.
They both have the responsibility to protect people.
You don’t think that teachers would want to save the children and themselves in a hostile situation?
So what you’re saying is that in a hostile situation like virginia tech or columbine you should just hope and pray that your child doesn’t die? Wait for the cops?
Here’s a little newsflash, none of the recent school shootings were stopped by the police. The attackers all killed themselves after killing many innocent, helpless others.
You mean, the police officer who is in the cafeteria when the shooting breaks out in the science lab? THAT police officer? The one who won’t get to the shooting scene until 10-20 students are already dead or injured? THAT police officer?
Pu-LEEZE.
Give me a break.
” Have you really ever needed to defend yourself on the way home?”
What happens on the day that you do, and don’t have the means? What happens if somebody runs a red light and you t-bone his car, and you aren’t wearing your seat belt?
“Is there ANYPLACE you would consider a bad place to be allowed to bring lethal weapons into?”
No. with the sole exception of jails and mental wards. A person who can be trusted to carry in the first place can be trusted anywhere (s)he is.
(And, you ended your sentence with a preposition. *raspberry*)
Your argument is ridiculous.
If you took a poll from older state workers from probably about 30+ years ago for the state of Maine I would bet that there were quite a few who kept guns in their vehicles during hunting season. So it is very likely that before recent legislation it was already happening in the past, until a point in time where it became a social taboo and then an illegal act.
Not all too long ago you could take your hunting rifle to school with you as well.
That is true in fact I remember reading something at one point of kids leaving their guns in the office and picking them up on their way out. I know that at college they used to let kids hunt right behind school grounds, but they haven’t allowed that in quite some time, you need special permission to cross the grounds these days.
“Unstable” person actually obeys the restriction and leaves his gun at home. An event happens that provokes his “instability”. “Unstable” person goes home, gets rifle/handgun/shotgun, returns to work, and caps 20 people.
Now, your argument was, again…..?
Once upon a time, there was a strange thing called “dignity” in State Government…but that was before the redneck teapartiers came to town and changed it to the wild west. Just one more example of what they call “progress.”
And, this is so because you SAY so?
There is no “dignity” in any government that interferes with natural rights, something at which Democrat administrations excel.
As if there being a law against it will keep someone who is “unhinged” from having a gun in their vehicle in the first place.
Don’t waste your breath.
That crowd doesn’t care about logic, evidence or reality.
Right, this is just what we need in the workplace – more guns. Maybe we could put a gun vending machine in the State House rotunda.
Guns are not IN the workplace, they’re in a person’s vehicle. Perhaps you should READ the article before reacting with such nonsense.
Not a bad idea! But put it the break room instead.
There won’t be “more guns”. There will only be employees who can’t be fired for having them in their cars.
Nice!! I pack every day at work with no problems.
beware of wolves in sheeps clothing David Burns is an ex statie he cannot be trusted to defend your rights
The individual right to carry a legal firearm in one’s vehicle is in NO way related to your absurd hypotheticals. We all know that firearms are banned in schools, prisons AND state buildings- as this article confirms. Stop your crying!
Yeah, and banning firearms in schools has been soooo effective in recent years.
Personally i think that principals and vice principals should be required to carry a concealed weapon and that teachers who have CWPs be allowed to carry.
So they pass a law over a right that has been around for quite a while? Augusta amazes me more and more each day with the time they waste.
Employers are enacting their own rules on their property infringing on your rights ! This is in response to it!
It is a good response!
Now instead of just arguing with each other, they can shoot each other, and that will be the end of discussion.
*sigh*
Can’t you sophists come up with anything remotely resembling a valid argument, backed by evidence?
No, I suspect not.
Another solution without a problem. LOL!
It ain’t a problem unless you happen to be the one canned for having a gun in your car.
Since you obviously don’t care about what they think, why should they care about what you think?
I think this is a big todo over nothing. There are about 29,000 active permits. 37% are issued to out of staters leaving about 10,730. If you go by the figure quoted out there of 1 in 6 people in Maine are state workers, that means about 1,110 people. I’ll bet half of them are not interested in leaving the gun in their car at work. leaving maybe 600. A lot of effort for 600 people. I believe if you went through all of the cars driven to work by state workers right now, you would find a couple of hundred with guns locked in their cars already, though probably not all permit holders. This seems more for show then a bill actully having purpose and merit. Another whoopie pie debate.
The purpose and merit is the protection of their continued employment.
Do you assert that this is not a good reason?
It’s good to finally see some common sense for a change. This should have been done decades ago. I think the nation is FINALLY understanding that gun laws only protect criminals and puts law-abiding citizens at a higher risk of danger. Good job to all who voted in favor of this bill.
Yo , the Man
How’s it going?
I assume you got your Beretta 9mm and Mossberg 500
and can pack . Did I mention your AK 47? No make that a AR 15.
Tell me Mr Law Abider:
1. What have you done about the FBI wacking Kennedy and Martin Luther King?
2. What are you going to do about Thomas Drake?
see
2 reads
1st read
Maine artist Robert Shetterly has painted over 160 portraits
in a series called AMERICANS WHO TELL THE TRUTH
Each portrait has a quotation from the person painted, written on the canvas.
Thomas Drake recently had his portrait painted by Robert Shetterly
http://americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/thomas_drake.php
2nd read
see link for full story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/prosecution-of-ex-nsa-official-thomas-drake-was-ill-considered-former-agency-spokesman-acknowledges/2012/03/12/gIQAXE6L7R_blog.html
03/12/2012
Prosecution of ex-NSA official Thomas Drake was ‘ill-considered,’ former agency spokesman says
By Ellen Nakashima
Drake was one of several sources for a Baltimore Sun article about a $1.2 billion NSA experimental program called Trailblazer to comb through electronic communications for national security threats. Drake alleged that the program did not work, violated Americans’ privacy rights, and that was inferior to a rival program called Thin Thread.
The prosecutor in the Drake case was William Welch, who supervised the botched corruption prosecution of former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. Welch is also the prosecutor in a case involving a former CIA officer, Jeffrey Sterling, accused of leaking classified information on reported efforts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program to New York Times reporter James Risen.
You sound confused. What does any of that junk have to do with citizens protecting themselves with their firearms at their place of work?
With all the brohua over passing legislation to pack I was using irony trying to say even those people who have weapons do nothing with them to protect themselves, and their Democracy eh?
NSA refuses to disclose its links with Google
http://rt.com/usa/news/nsa-epic-foia-court-413/
Published: 13 March, 2012, 01:18
I get it. Your an uneducated un-patriotic Tory. Sad…..
you’re*
Ignore him and he may go away.
It’s ok. I enjoy reading about how confused some people are when it comes to reality. We have some real whacko’s in society, and I enjoy setting ALL of them straight consistently.
What are you going to do about your mental condition? Seek psychiatric help?
Absolutely nuts !
Will penguin be packing when he blasts off to China? And if not, why not? He’s got rights.
Not in China, he doesn’t.
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952) I fear a government that fears my gun
A ‘need’ for a gun is compensation for fear of impotency – Carl Jung
“Take their guns away first” – Hitler, Stalin, Mao.
Impotency? Tell that to my wife and 4 kids!
I already told your wife. 4 times.
lol
just kidding!
And her reply was “no Kidding”… lol
Fear of….. irrational fear of and watch comments like that as they provide an excellent example of the very thing you believe you are proving to be false.
This should calm things right down….I don’t know why we didn’t think of this sooner ! If everybody was required to have a gun nobody would use one illegally…Right ???
Non sequitur.
Criminals would still use them illegally, and the present law can’t prevent that because they already use them illegally unimpeded, hence the only difference is that peaceable citizens would not continue to have their rights obstructed.
Who, or what group are obstructing your rights ? Are their any laws being proposed in Congress that would obstruct your 2nd amendment rights ? I have not heard of any, did I miss something ?
State government agencies who prohibit firearms locked in personal vehicles parked on their property.
Uh… (scratching head) that WAS the issue, was it not?
I thought that I had asked you….. Who were those groups or agencies ? Didn’t I ? I believe that I do understand the issue ! Why the head sratching ?
Asked and answered. The head scratching was puzzlement as to why you even asked, given that the answer was so obvious.
Still have not got an answer from you. What government agencies are trying to infringe on your 2nd amendment rights ?
All those state government agencies that prohibit guns secured in parked vehicles on their property.
You through pullin’ teeth yet?
I am not “pullin” teeth, I did a search and could find nothing. I was wondering if you could tell me what Government agencies they were ?
It is the best plan by far, of the Maine Legislature ,to deal with Global Warming and Climate change by thinning the herd.
Did I mention it is there only plan?
So that is why the lawmakers are in Augusta wasting time on this BS
I suppose that to a person who doesn’t work for the state, hence doesn’t need to park on state property every day of the week, this is indeed BS.
How very MAGNANIMOUS of you!
“affirms Second Amendment gun rights and brings equity to a concealed-carry law that passed last year.”… This is awesome, now all we need is for the ACLU to push to allow inmates to carry concealed weapons… Remember 2nd Amendment rights!!
Another civics-challenged individual.
The suspension of rights for felons and inmates (while incarcerated) is entirely constitutional. “…nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The aforementioned received due process of law and were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by juries of their peers and sentenced, ipso facto, they may be deprived of their liberty.
Sheesh. We’re in a room full of idiots.
found guilty and sentenced, ipso facto, they MAY BE be deprived of their liberty.
And in the case of incarcerated criminals, ARE deprived of their liberty, because the government MAY do it.
What WAS your point, anyway?
This is just so bizarre. Where are the plain, ole decent folks who think the rest of the world is just about as decent as them? Legislators spending time on a bill like this? And, then passing it! I think there are some mentally unbalanced people in this legislature. Like all of them that voted for it.
If the government wasn’t obstructing the exercise of the people’s rights in the first place, it wouldn’t be necessary.
But it is, and it is.
The greeks have more cajones than the entire US Empire has.
They don’t have a Second Amendment but they know how to take care of the moonbats,eh?
Greek pensioner pours yogurt over Finance Minister Venizelos
Katerina Nikolas
Mar 11, 2012
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321005
Greek Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos is the
latest victim of a yogurt attack. A disgruntled pensioner attacked
Venizelos by pelting him with yogurt, in the traditional Greek form of
protest known as “yaourtoma.”
Will state legislators be allowed to bring guns to work too?
Didn’t we just have a (resigned) state rep get a sentence for doing just that recently?
I have one better–all Reps and Senators allowed to conceal carry on the floor of the Leg!
That might change their minds about this law!
Sheesh–check your brains at the door, legislators.
Wow, sit back and watch all the B.S coming from both R+D’s, it will never end! But I bet if you went into a state office building and opened all the cars, you will find hand guns. Go into an insurance company parking lot, open all their cars and you will find guns. “Opponents argued the bill, which loosens firearms restrictions for state employees, is unnecessary” If unnecessary, why all the fighting? All I’m saying is if you have a permit and you feel the need to carry, you will have your weapon with you, no matter where you park.
Yes. This.
”
Many, he said, feel less safe knowing there could be guns in their parking lots.”
Makes perfect sense…..NOT!
Weapons are banned on certain properties, but that doesn’t stop criminals from going there and carrying out attacks.
Restricting the ability for people to defend themselves is one of the greatest injustices that our government can legislate.
How anybody “feels” about it is immaterial to the issue. Rights can’t be attenuated based upon how people “feel” about them.
A civics lesson is in order here….
Wow!!! This bill really creates and brings a lot of jobs to Maine doesn’t it….Why are we spending all this time in the legislature to pass bills that allow Maine citizens to bring guns to their work place locked up in there vehicles with a concealed permit when they already can do so. This is what a concealled firearms permit allows you….to bring it to the workplace, locked up and out of site….you don’t have to waste taxpayers money on these bills…lets start spending the time and same effort in putting our people back to work in Maine istead of passing bills that are already covered under another statue….Thank you and good day!
Wrong, you could not have firearms on state property, even if you had a concealed carry permit. The law that was passed last year said that employers could not ban you from having your gun on company property if it was locked in your vehicle and you had a permit. The company that I work for had such a rule in place, and the law reversed it.
No, it just gets obstructionists out of the way of people’s fundamental rights.
And, that’s a BAD thing?
“You… you need he’p.” – Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March
The idiots can go back to the good old days and have duels to settle their differences.
Society would get a lot more polite in a hurry.
If you don’t think that there are already people with guns locked in their cars at work, you’re naïve at best, cluelessly Democrat at worst.
And the hare-brained scenario you portray isn’t happening.
Is it.
The only difference here is that those folks couldn’t be fired because of it.
once again it shows how the democratic party believes in the goverment takeing care of you and you dont need firearms as a citizen.Their big goverment policics want your guns.
Let’s cut to the chase and allow guns in elementary school. Kindergarten may be too young. Not for the NRA, but for most of the rest of us. And let’s allow guns in bars in bars, where people show their most responsible sides. We just do not have enough opportunity to use our guns. Especially semi- automatic guns. Until every man woman, and child has 20 guns we cannot be safe. Until massacres are commonplace we have room for more places to use them. We have enough massacres already? Oh, never mind. Then let’s not allow guns in state workplaces. Let’s draw the line somewhere.
Teachers and principals should be armed.
They’re already responsible for our childrens safety while at school.
Why not give them the tools necessary to protect them if a tragic, hostile situation might happen?
If a person can be trusted to carry at all, they can be trusted to carry anywhere they are.
Your canned argument is a veritable clinic of non sequiturs.
Well no, there’s a shooting waiting to happen. They should not need to bring guns to work.
Why is that a shooting waiting to happen?
If a person is going to “lose it” and start shooting no law is going to prevent that.
You just create victims of those who would defend themselves and others.
Well yes, there is a drunk waiting to drive and kill your family too so lets outlaw coffee brandy
“Opponents argued the bill, which loosens firearms restrictions for state employees, is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.”
As always is the case regarding this issue, the opponents argue facts not in evidence. As a matter of fact, quite the converse is true historically.
Which is why the opponents must be invited to take a seat and shut the hell up.
This approval must be in-order to be able to shoot each other incase of disagreement. I wonder if the next bill will be “State Approves Funding For State Employee Guns”
Why not? Get the union on the phone….
This is so when Sarah Palin puts out the call to load and reload and take “our” America back they’ll be ready.
And do-o-o-o-n’t you for-git IT.
P.S. –
Sarah is so drop-dead gorgeous that by contrast she makes Moochelle look like the disgusting big-butt, flat-footed ho’ that she is.
And do-o-o-o-n’t you for-git THAT, either.
(Mebbe that’s why you imbeciles hate her so much….?)
Let’s see now, Folks on my side have been referred to as They, right wingers, radicals, repubukes, losers, idiots etc. Never is it mentioned who this bill is meant for ie, Law abiding citizens who are permitted to own firearms . If you don’t want to have a gun in your trunk, don’t!
Once Global Warming fully kicks in this summer everybody and his brother will be kneecapping his neighbor for the last piece of stale bread when we run out of food due to crop failures connected to drought and unpredictable weather patterns.
Glad the moonbats installed the metal detectors at the Bat House in Augusta .
They can detect wooden stakes, eh ? LOL
Don’t forget to cast your Diebold Vote during the upcoming election
for Global Warming Minimalists Chellie” Jonestown” Pingree and Mike ” uNBalanced Meterologist”
Michaud
This just in
Warm records falling across Northeast, Midwest
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/13/10666827-warm-records-falling-across-northeast-midwest
also see
http://www.heatisonline.org
It’s nice to see that polarizing and meaningless b.s. like this is what the house is focusing and working on. Job well done. What a joke.