Bill to allow guns in Maine State House advances

[Maine-ah]

Source: BDN

AUGUSTA, Maine — A bill that would allow guns in the Maine State House has been narrowly endorsed by a legislative committee, even as efforts continue to bolster security in the Capitol.

The proposal sponsored by Republican Rep. Dale Crafts of Lisbon would allow concealed-weapon permit holders to bring guns into the State House. Maine Today Media says the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted 7-4 to recommend passage of the bill on Friday, setting the stage for floor debate.

Supporters say gun owners have a right to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms even in state buildings. Opponents say the bill doesn’t fix any problem. And a Republican leader points out that schoolchildren come to the State House all of the time.

Read more: http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/04/17/politics/bill-to-allow-guns-in-maine-state-house-advances/

---

related story:

http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/04/11/politics/bills-seek-to-change-maine%E2%80%99s-concealed-weapon-laws/?ref=relatedBox

Bills seek to change Maine’s concealed weapon laws

By Kevin Miller, BDN Staff
Posted April 11, 2011, at 8:09 p.m.

AUGUSTA, Maine — Lawmakers heard hours of arguments Monday about the right to self-defense versus the state’s obligation to protect the public as they considered proposals to loosen laws dictating when and where someone can carry a concealed gun.

Bills seeking to rewrite Maine’s concealed weapons permit system are introduced seemingly every legislative session. But with a new Republican majority in the State House, advocates for gun owners’ rights hope for more success this year.

Under current law, average Mainers who want to carry a gun hidden from view must apply for a concealed-firearms permit and even then are prohibited from bringing a gun into schools, courthouses, the Maine State House and other locations.

One proposal under consideration by the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, LD 1347, would allow permit holders to carry concealed firearms into state parks, establishments where alcohol is served, at labor strikes and the State House.

[Maine-ah]

1. while they're busy trying to pass

many BS items...the rest of Maine is screaming "where the fuck are the jobs!"

Maine needs to get back on track to more important issues. This should be a no-brainer, considering the current political climate.

[jpak]

4. Guns in the State House will generate jobs

for undertakers

and lawyers

yup

[gejohnston]

14. Nope

Jobs for no one, would be laying off the guy at the metal detector. You have this bizarre fantasy that armed people will come out of the woodwork and start mowing each other down for something to do. I thought critical thinking was a liberal value.

[jpak]

17. They carry guns because they don't intend to use them?

:shrug:

(answer- nope)

Is there rampant violent crime and assault and murder at the Maine State House?

NOPE

All these teabaggin' douchebags want to do is intimidate Dem/Lib legislators

with deadly instruments

yup

[gejohnston]

31. you missed the point

I doubt anyone lobbied for it. He or his staff thought of it do distract everyone from the fact that he is doing nothing constructive.

[jpak]

36. OK - and you are right about the distraction - the Maine GOP has done nothing about jobs

except make people work for less $$$

yup

[greiner3]

46. Sorry;

I think you missed the point. The NRA has lobbied for any and all laws that restrict the carrying of guns anywhere in the US.

Whether this bill is a distraction is hardly a talking point. I consider myself both an uber liberal and some consider me a critical thinker. I hope I am the former and events will determine the latter.

Increased ownership, use and talk of anything increases the chances of something going wrong. With guns this means deadly consequences. Take chain saws. If there were a national debate about the right to carry a chain saw-and who could say this is not a fire arm (all you'd have to do would be to strap a device capable of hurling a projectile)and death and mayhem by the use of chain saws would increase. Imagine, 100 million Americans carrying chain saws just in case the nut in the car in front of you does something you don't like. You could then wait until the guy pulls over and chop off a few body parts.

[gejohnston]

50. Maybe

OK but historical precedent plays a role. That is not the history.
I think it would be waste for the NRA to spend resources on such things. Since both the NRA under Wayne and Ted have gone off the deep end, and Brady is ........ I really don't know what their talking points are. I am basing some of it is personal experience. For example, open carry has always been legal in Wyoming. Other than uniformed police or conservation officers, how many people did I see carrying in town as a kid? Zero. How many do I see when I go home? Zero. There might be transplant from NY thinking "hey look what I can do here!" but I have not seen them. Can you carry in city hall or the courthouse there? Never looked it up, never thought of looking it up.
That is why I doubt there will be a mad rush to to the capitol building armed. Go to Vermont and see how many people carry concealed, since they never banned or required a permit (there are historical reasons for this, but not what either side thinks), I doubt more than five percent ever have.
That said, is it a wise thing to do? With few exceptions, no.

[PavePusher]

96. The freely available crime stats do not seem to support your assumption. n/t

[Kolesar]

19. Speak for yourself, gejohnston

"You have this bizarre fantasy"

[gejohnston]

28. I do speak for myself

I read some of his other posts on the subject, they seem to have the same theme. I think the whole thing is a stupid distraction.

[WatsonT]

82. I'm sure a lot of would be assassins at just waiting for this to pass

Because before the law banning them from having guns there had prevented them from killing politicians (because that would be illegal).

/this is what anti-gun types actually believe.

[jpak]

2. Dale Crafts is the hughest GOP moran in the legislature - he loves him some Jack DeCoster too

I can guarantee LePage won't let any of these heat packing morans near him.

The State House is no place for asshole Teabaggers with guns

yup

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Oh, but he's got those State Troopers as body guards now, so he's safe!

[jpak]

8. Yup - when he grants audiences to the commoners they are vetted and screened for guns

Only disarmed sycophant teabaggers can actually meet with him

yup

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

5. I've been posting about the GOP/NRA Master Plan for several months

They want guns everywhere all the time - schools, churches, bars, restaurants, you name it.

They want to open carry handguns - everywhere - all the time.

They want Castle Doctrine laws - legalized murder

they suck

yup

[gejohnston]

16. How is Castle Doctrine

legalized murder? Are you saying that someone defending themselves against a home invader or a woman who resists, maybe killing, her rapist a vigilante? That is the logical extension of your argument.

[jpak]

18. It is in Texas - and there is at least one case in FL too.

Texan kills burglars next door, citing 'castle doctrine'

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Shocking_911_tape_Man_kills_next_1116.html

A so-called "castle doctrine" law recently passed in Texas allows people to use deadly force to protect their homes and property. However, a case in which a Houston-area man in his 70's killed two apparent burglars he observed breaking into his neighbor's house has raised new questions about how far that doctrine might extend.

The man called an emergency dispatcher when he first saw the alleged burglars, saying "I've got a shotgun, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," replied the dispatcher. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, ok? ... I've got officers coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

"I understand that," the caller replied, "but I have a right to protect myself too, sir, and you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the 1st, and you know it and I know it."

<more>

It wasn't even his "castle" - and he got away with murder

Man Cleared for Killing Neighbor's Burglars

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1

A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.


Some think Joe Horn when too far when he shot and killed two men he believed were buglarizing his neighbor's home.
In the Lone Star state, where the six-gun tamed the frontier, shooting bad guys is a time-honored tradition, and Horn's case centered on a Texas state law based on the old idea that "a man's home is his castle." The "castle law" gives Texans unprecedented legal authority to use deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplaces. And no longer do they have an obligation to retreat, if possible, before they shoot.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters at the courthouse. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances. ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."


'I'm Gonna Shoot!' Horn called 911 in November to report a burglary in broad daylight at the house next door.



Castle Doctrine = legalized muder

yup

[gejohnston]

30. If these are the only facts of the cases

I would agree with you, on these cases. But two isolated cases do not make the rule. The alternative, duty to retreat, includes fleeing from own home. It is well established in criminal science that you are at greater risk by trying to flee rather than resist. Sorry, while the castle doctrine is not perfect, the alternative is hardly the mark of a just society.

[jpak]

33. Yes - these deaths are an acceptable death toll to Castle Doctrine apologists

I do not think any state has a death penalty for attempted burglary

Texas not so much

yup

[bongbong]

57. What????

"It is well established in criminal science that you are at greater risk by trying to flee rather than resist."

Well established only on the Bizarro planet. :rofl:

[gejohnston]

61. no

peer reviewed science. Florida State University study by Dr. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Peer reviewed by sociologist Lawrence Ross and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang. Wolfgang advocated banning all firearms including carried by police noted: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
Sound like a NRA flack? No. :nuke:

[bongbong]

64. Their study has nothing to do with your claim

Your grammar doesn't help anything, but it APPEARS the study you claim (with no link) says that cops should engage and not retreat. Since this thread isn't about cops, rather civilians, you're gonna have to provide a study, or an NRA-sponsored-lie-study, that "proves" that citizens should fight rather than run.

Good luck. :rofl:

[gejohnston]

68. because I read it in one of Dr. Kleck's books

and there is no really good links for it. Just have to read a couple of his books. Read a couple by Don Kates too. Is it my grammar or your reading skills? The study was not about cops. It is about civilians. Wolfgang dislikes cops having guns, let alone civilians. That is the only reference to cops. Cops are obligated to engage, you and I both know that.
What is the point of sponsoring studies when you can just make stuff up like Brady? Cheaper and easier. NRA propaganda is more about making it a right/left culture war. They do their cause more harm than good doing it, but it is what it is.
Fleeing only works if the victim is more athletic than the criminal. Besides, predators like robbers and rapists prefer easy prey.


http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QXeGX67ezSYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=gary+kleck&ots=nUxSBocsNy&sig=VlnGKH6bJDnl-h0MWNmJK-RMiJk#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

[bongbong]

73. Fleaing!

"Fleeing only works if the victim is more athletic than the criminal."

Or when the criminal doesn't feel like attracting attention by running after the would-be victim. Or when the victim can run quickly to a well-lit or well-populated location. Or any of about a million other scenarios.

"Besides, predators like robbers and rapists prefer easy prey."

How do they know it's "easy"? By the size? Or can they mind read if the potential prey has martial arts training, or a camera, or a big club, or even a gun?


You're doing good work carrying the NRA water, but as always there is no factual basis for any of it. The NRA mindset might work on Bizarro World, but the last time I checked, we're on earth. Maybe the Gun Religionists live on Bizarro World. :rofl:

[gejohnston]

74. Don't carry water for anyone

do your own research rather than parroting Brady talking points.
Are you a criminologist, self defense expert, or just play them on TV?
Since you are dismissing research you have not read by people you never heard of,your mind is closed to all but your ideology and preconceived ideas. That is always unfortunate.

[bongbong]

79. Huh?

"Since you are dismissing research you have not read by people you never heard of,your mind is closed to all but your ideology and preconceived ideas."

Completely illogical. According to this idea, if somebody makes a claim with no evidence, I must believe that claim or else I am close-minded. And that if I make clear arguments that refute that claim, they can't be valid because the "authority figures" said it can't be true.

You can't be this illogical.

[gejohnston]

80. Not quite

I gave a link to one of the guy's books and a link to his web page at the University. The idea was to go read the book and other works written by him and others on the subject. People who know what they are talking about. Not everything is online. You dismissed it out of hand as NRA propaganda without checking out the evidence I offered. That is a closed minded.
Your arguments did not clearly refute anything. The studies say more likely. There are an infinite number of scenarios that work either way granted, but it is still the law of probability. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Peer reviewed preferred.
As for authorities, I happen to prefer to be informed by people who know what they are talking about and as the cliche goes, let the chips fall where they may. I think policy should only be based on the empirical. One of the annoying things about this issue is that otherwise intelligent and clear thinking people go off the deep end. To top it off, as soon as they read some talking point they become instant experts in things they know nothing about. I intended to write it that way. It is like trying to explain geology to a bunch of creationists.
In the end, what does any of this have to do with some state rep coming up with a bill that no one cared about, no one lobbied for, and affects few if anyone? Nothing. He simply did it to distract everyone from his party's lack of doing anything constructive on things that really matter. No more no less. It also makes a nice wedge issue to divide and conquer, but he may not be bright enough to notice that. Has nothing to do with the Castle Doctrine, Duty to Retreat, or any of that. Yet it devolved into a profane, given the number of deletes, fight over just that.
If we are talking about what the thread is supposed to be, we a agree (it seems) that this state rep wrote a stupid bill for his own self serving reasons. OK we agree this bill is a stupid idea.
Beyond that, I doubt we are going to convince each other of anything. Personal epiphanies trumps rhetoric.

[bongbong]

88. Kleck - the one "scholarly" source the NRA has

Kleck has been discredited. He is another water carrier for the NRA.

http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/gary-kleck-numbers-often-disputed

Sorry, you want to read about how guns cause unicorns & ponies to magically appear. I want to read about reality.

[gejohnston]

94. so why don't you?

Read about reality that is. Remember what I said about teaching Creationists geology? Seriously, I give an academic peer reviewed study, and you give what amounts to a propaganda pamphlet written by a paid mouthpiece. No, the propaganda link did not show him being discredited about anything. One that took Wolfgang out of context about a problem Dr. Kleck wrestles with in his book. The studies mentioned with no link, turned out to be shill studies by an MD and a couple of economists paid for by one of Brady's major funders, the Joyce Foundation. The ironic thing is that they landed up in disagreeing with Kleck and other serious studies only by degree, but was not able to challenge the basic issue. That covers the first two paragraphs in the tract. The last paragraph simply regurgitates nonsense the University of Massachusetts (under contract of National Institute of Justice) debunked in the 1970s.
Actually there are quite a few but Kleck was the first one to study the issue seriously and just happened to be the best known. Did I mention that Kleck's first book won the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for making "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in 1993?
So far you:
tried to discredit a book you did not read, with half baked tripe
made a baseless claim about a respected (liberal Democrat, just intellectually honest) academic
compared facts and logic with ponies and unicorns

So next will be the ad hominem attacks at me personally. It is part of the process. So, I will give you the last word.

[Hangingon]

37. The Texas events were not under the Castle Doctrine....

as you have been told. These shootings were under the Texas property defense statutes.

[jpak]

38. which is the Castle Doctrine

yup

[gejohnston]

39. don't think so.

But then this is more of job for lawyers licensed in Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

This is Florida's

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

[Gormy Cuss]

40. Your own link for FL includes FAQs about the Castle doctrine.

Q. What if someone is attacking me in my own home?

A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder.

Q. What if I am in my place of business and someone comes in to rob me? Do I have to retreat before using deadly force?

A. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.

[jpak]

41. They were both called "Castle" Laws - and the same name in other states

I guess the Castle Doctrine folks are running away from it now

re-branding the same old same old

yup

[Hangingon]

93. Sorry no

Do some research for yourself. You might learn something.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

55. Castle Doctrine is NOT legalized murder..

It addresses the fundamental right of self defense. I should have the right to use any means necessary, and yes that includes firearms, to defend my home, my property and my loved ones...without fear of repercussions.

[primavera]

84. Defend it from what?

Does this mean that I get to blow away the Jehovah's Witnesses who come onto my porch?

I do understand and respect the right of self-defense, but key is that you need to be defending your life. As far as I'm aware, the right to self defense does not entitle one to use deadly force to defend property. So, if your life isn't in any danger, then how can you justify killing someone on the grounds of self defense? Sure, the homeowner doesn't know whether the burglar breaking into his/her house intends to kill the homeowner, or, if left to his own devices, would have swiped a ham sandwich and a beer from the fridge and departed in peace. I don't know, nor am I confident that there is any way of knowing a burglar's intentions for sure, but I would imagine that most burglars are not serial killers; that most burglars are looking to swipe a stereo and be on their way. If that's true, then most of the time, the homeowner is not defending his/her life, but merely his/her property.

The burglar, if apprehended by police, will receive a maximum sentence of a few years in prison. Yet we are to understand that the homeowner exercises the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of a death sentence. And this strikes us as logical?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

22. Open carry advocates are moderates? Like the guys who carried guns at anti-Obama rallies

wow

learn something new every day

[Shiver]

26. Never said they were

but I don't doubt that some are. A good friend of mine is very liberal on any issue you can name, and he advocates open carry. I wasn't naming one group, I was naming four separate groups that, in the past week, I have seen people decrying and stating a desire to see drummed out of the party based upon idealogical purity.

[gejohnston]

47. Isn't that

guilt by association?

[jpak]

49. Yes - becasue it is the same cookie-cutter GOP/NRA agenda in all 50 states

Guns everwhere all the time

yup

[gejohnston]

52. NRA maybe

GOP only because they can make it a wedge issue, which they did to break a part off the FDR coalition (white rural and blue collar guys). Since Brady (and their allies)founders and management are mostly conservative/Republicans, I tend to think they are playing both sides of the street.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Why is this even necessary?

The state Constitution as amended by referendum in 1994 states that the people's right to bear arms shall never be questioned.

Technically my debaters are liable to civil suit for running any gun-control affirmative cases in a tournament.

[bongbong]

63. Really?

That's an infringement on free speech by the government. I'm surprised it hasn't been struck down on Constitutional grounds - although I know repigs have little if any respect for the Constitution, and gun religionists have little respect for it outside the 2nd Amendment (which doesn't have anything to do with laissez faire gun ownership anyway)

[Davis_X_Machina]

65. There's an automatic cause for civil action....

....created whenever Maine citizen X does something contrary to the constitution to the detriment of citizen Y's rights. I'm not sure whom my debaters would be harming, or what the harm would be, but they'd sure as hell be tortfeasors, because they'd be questioning the people's right to keep and bear arms.

I always told the kids they were safe -- but only because the NRA hadn't worked out all the issues of standing, etc. yet, not because of the first amendment.

There used to be a judge upstate who refused to issue anything restricting gun possession or ownership or such to people who had restraining orders out against them, had been found mentally incompetent, etc, citing the amendment in his defense.

I admired him -- so long as he, and his petitioners, were upstate.

[bongbong]

67. Paradox

"... created whenever Maine citizen X does something contrary to the constitution to the detriment of citizen Y's rights."

So can somebody be arrested for causing my Free Speech rights to be abridged?

This is the kind of paradox you get when you have repigs messing with Constitutional issues. By all their actions, repigs hate the Constitution with a vehemence matched only by their hatred for African Americans. The only thing they care about is the 2nd Amendment, which ironically has nothing to do with laissez faire gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment is about state militias.

[Davis_X_Machina]

69. The amendments are numbered wrong, is all

...the First should be second, and of course, the mighty Second should be first.

More accurately, the Second, and the religious clauses of the First, should be combined, with the remaining clauses of the First renumbered as the Second, since in every case we're talking about a theology. And you can't get traction in a theological argument with facts.

The very reason why people in the state of nature originally came together, in the first place, and form societies, and create polities, is guns.

It's in Aristotle's Politics, you could look it up.

[bongbong]

71. Good reply

I bet you could use your "fact" of Aristotle advocating guns to the Gun Religionists. They would nod approvingly and say "even the Greeks knew guns were great!"

[gejohnston]

72. believe it or not

I actually agree with you, that was a lame argument.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Which of his constituents have advocated this?

More specifically, which ones are pushing that are personally wanting to enter those buildings with a weapon?

[jpak]

10. He probably got an anonymous FAX from some flounder - just like LePage did with the MDOL mural

all the nut jobs are coming out of the woodwork

yup

[freshwest]

76. LePage attracts anonymous complaints like fly paper. Whatever became of the mural, anyway?

[gejohnston]

13. I doubt any

His own idea as a distraction while doing serious damage. Given the small number of CCW holders and even fewer that would be going to the capitol building to begin with.

[Kolesar]

20. Complete sentences are nice

I cannot figure out what you said

[gejohnston]

29. OK

The politician thought of it on his own as a distraction. I doubt anyone actually cared about the subject until he brought it up.

[Kolesar]

21. Clever phrasing

that would make a good LTTE

[onehandle]

12. Teabagger values advance. nt

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whoneedstickets]

48. Here at DU too.

[Vinca]

23. The idiots in NH have already passed that one.

:banghead:

[jpak]

25. Free Stater morans

yup

[TatonkaJames]

32. The end game here is...

A Republican will shoot and kill a demonstrator, claim self defense and get away with it, thus cutting the size or all future demonstrations.
This is getting us closer to 1984.

[jpak]

34. Union thugs = targets - and Haley Barbour has designated the liberal media as "targets" too

yup

Gun Shop Visit underscore's Barbour's Pitch

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligen...

With a 22-person media contingent outside, and only a handful of prospective voters inside, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (edit R-moran) wasn't trying to conceal the message he was sending to New Hampshire voters as he wound down his first visit of the year as a prospective presidential contender.

<snip>

The visit to Riley's Gun Shop in Hooksett underscored not only Barbour's support for Second Amendment freedoms, but also his affinity for the ideals embraced in the lead presidential primary state.

During a conversation with owner Ralph Demicco and, later, reporters against a backdrop of ammunition boxes, Barbour expressed his support for low taxes and aversion to government spending; for the right to keep and bear arms; and for the Granite State's conservative tradition.

"I told them outside, 'A lot of targets' – the liberal media," Barbour quipped to Demicco as the two chatted amid a pack of reporters, television, and still cameras.

<more>

[PavePusher]

97. And this has happened elsewhere with similar laws?

Perhaps you can cite some evidence?

[Downwinder]

35. Are pitchforks allowed?

[plumbob]

51. I'm slowly coming to think that the state ought to issue everyone a gun

every time they meet with an elected official - never mind permits and all that. Just give every single person who is about to see an elected official a loaded weapon.

I'm starting to like this much of the idea...

[OwnedByFerrets]

53. READ: You can carry a gun IF you look like me and think like me

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bongbong]

56. Finally! A repig job creation bill

Jobs for undertakers, anyway.

[Doctor_J]

91. And CSU clean-up units

let's be fair

[gejohnston]

58. Notice how a thread about some state rep

introducing a bill about going into the capitol building devolved into a fight about Castle Doctrine vs Duty to Retreat with 14 percent delete rate?

[jpak]

59. If you have been paying attention - this is part of a nationwide effort by the GOP and NRA

to overturn sensible gun laws and allow people to carry concealed/open carry guns in all public venues

and Castle Doctrine laws are part of that agenda

they are doing it state by state

and bill by bill

yup

[gejohnston]

62. Right wing giveth, right wing taketh away.

Most of these laws were right wing creations to begin with. There are more important issues to work on, ones we most likely agree on. Instead of Castle Doctrine, do you propose Duty to Retreat even with its downsides? w

[Doctor_J]

60. Am all for it

if they are used against LaPage and every last one of his cronies.

[fascisthunter]

66. creating the ground work for a perfect storm

ironic if it turns on the very losers who are pushing this agenda. Playing stupid won't fool anyone, more guns for the crazies to carry anywhere.

[gejohnston]

70. not logical

a crazy would ignore the law anyway.

[fascisthunter]

81. no... not the crazy fools who want to carry a weapon everywhere they go

for them, they no longer have a law telling them they can't.... crazy folks do follow some laws, and you know that.

[WatsonT]

83. So crazy people are willing to commit murder

but not violate handgun laws?

Do you really believe that?

/I have no problem robbing banks, but I absolutely refuse to speed while getting away. Hey those laws are for everyone's safety!

[fascisthunter]

86. in and of itself? No... not necessarily....

See, most folks follow most laws, crazy or not. If they didn't they'd all be behind bars long before they could harm anyone and we would never have to worry about it, well except for those who always feel unsafe and need to carry a gun around them 24-7. All it takes is a perfect situation to drive them over the edge to harm people and those needing a gun with them always, tend to be a bit unstable... a constant need for security. That "need" could be a fetish, but whatever it may be, it's a clear sign the person is a bit unstable to begin with.

Most people don't feel the need to carry guns, only loons do.

[WatsonT]

87. Most crazy folks who decide to do something crazy

ignore all the laws that would prevent them from doing previously mentioned crazy thing. For instance, I doubt the availability of legal parking spots would have stopped Loughner. "Aw shucks, I can't park in a handicapped spot and the rest say reserved, guess I'll give up on this whole crazy plan and go back to school, maybe be an accountant or something".

"Most people don't feel the need to carry guns, only loons do."

Cops carry them. So do soldiers.

Unfortunately so do thieves, murderers, rapists, etc.

Convince those last three not to exist, and then convince me that the government will always act in my best interests and we'll talk about doing away with the 2nd.

[PavePusher]

98. Broadbrush attack = bigotry. n/t

[Zambero]

75. Hey, Mr. Legislator...

Still seein' any murals here you don't much care for? No problem, just shoot 'em up. It's the law!!

[Gregorian]

77. In what way would this be a positive evolution of society?

I thought we were trying to be less violent, and more communicative as a specie.

And what could possibly go wrong with more guns in more places.

[gejohnston]

78. I see where you are coming from

I think it refers mostly to people with CCW, which something like one or two percent. I don't see a bunch of people arming themselves to go to the capitol building. I certainly do not see shoot outs either. Like I said in an earlier post, growing up in Wyoming, where open carry has always been legal, no one did. Don't see anyone doing it when I go home. At least not in town. Hunters (speaking of pistols, last time I checked Wyoming did not allow hunting large game with a handgun, but then I quit hunting a long time ago so it might have changed) and ranchers out in the sticks, rarely.
It is a non issue no one cared about until this guy or his staff decided to distract everyone from him doing nothing constructive.
With few exceptions, I agree it is a stupid idea.

[primavera]

85. So, if no one ever exercises this in practice...

... then there's no need for a law articulating a right to it, no?

[gejohnston]

95. No a right is a right

I am a strong believer in all of the natural rights that comes with the enlightenment. If being anti gun a progressive value, why most if not all of the founders and managers of Brady and alike are conservatives and Republicans?
To be honest, I don't like it when after reading a set of talking points become instant experts in things they know nothing about, and feel qualified to tell me what is best for what use and demand laws that, if they looked them up, often already exist. I also don't buy into irrational fears and hysteria. From reading a lot of these threads, by anti gun "liberals" most of it is just that. There is also a hint of elitism and snobbishness. So while supporting those union workers and farmers in Wisconsin out of one side their mouths, while demeaning many of those same people who happen to hunt or target shoot or whatever as "hicks, rubes, small penis brigade, yahoos, rednecks etc." out of the other. Growing up blue collar in Wyoming, I know those same people know it. The GOP makes sure they do. Then the Dems are clueless as to why we lost the white rural/blue collar vote since the late 1960s. It is not just clinging to guns and religion, it is simple distrust of what many on main street see as patronizing and elitist urbanites. Until Walker in Wisconsin, the plutocrats' sock puppets, the GOP, were at least smart enough to hide their contempt while conning them. I know hearing and reading this pisses a lot of liberals off. Can't help that. That is the reality as I and many of my peers and elders see it. If this gets deleted or if Skinner bans me, so be it. Still the truth as I see it around me.
I grew up in a rural area with guns. They were and are just there. We were and are peaceful and talked things out without dueling. Granted, we did wear around town. But then, we rarely locked our doors too. Finland and Switzerland are both peaceful. They have a lot of guns. Finns hunt and Swiss target shoot. The Swiss also have a lot of machine guns. The Swiss carry them on the trains slung on their shoulders in civilian clothes going to the range. It is not too many or too few guns, many of the countries with the strictest gun laws also make us look like Japan. it is all about history, culture, inequality of wealth. No more, no less.
I want Democrats to win, I want to see the FDR coalition put back together. Most of those NRA members were part of it. JFK was. That will make us a better society than going into hysterics over a mechanical device which is simply an updated crossbow.

[Doctor_J]

90. Repukes don't believe in evolution

so I guess this is a non-issue to them.

[rbixby]

89. I just don't see the reason behind it

Why do you need guns in the capital? I mean run rights and all are constitutionally guaranteed, but really......why?

[Doctor_J]

92. It's to distract from the fact that the "governor" is destroying the state

will do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life in ME