I predict that the duty to inform law will not change at all until such time as a court requires it to be repealed or changed. The argument in court would be, what public good does the law accomplish that would outweigh the 4th amendment infringement in that the state can require a person to pay a fine for doing nothing more than not informing a law enforcement officer that they were in lawful possession of a personal possession - or a person who is in unlawful possession of a gun gets fined for it and they argue that the duty to inform violates their 5th amendment rights by requiring them to immediately self-incriminate themselves.
We've been discussing how a court case might happen and I agree generally with your assessment. I don't believe anyone has put the proper legal lingo to this yet, what you are saying is that the law fails on every level of scrutiny. Every law must meet "rational basis", a level of scrutiny that basically says that a law must meet it's intended goal. I am not aware of any explicit mention of how the duty to inform is supposed to serve the public good then we are forced to contrive that goal on our own. Since this involves constitutionally protected rights then we get into the territory of "strict scrutiny" and "intermediate scrutiny". Like other recent Second Amendment cases I foresee a court ruling that there is no need to determine the level of scrutiny required since this law fails on every level.
I'm now convinced that the best plan of attack is to kill this bill before it can become law.
IA_farmboy and NavyLCDR, every one of your points are valid and could possibly happen...or they might not. Understanding that the onus and discretion falls on the LEOs and those LEOs are human, the only reply I can truly say is that Maine is not New Jersey, thank God!!!
You tell that to the person that got the short straw and ran into Officer Roid-Rage, I don't expect that to be much of a consolation.
If you think that the duty to inform is odious, you really won't like the other amendment that the gun grabbers added, which in my opinion is infinitely worse. If you're carrying legally, then the duty to inform is really no worse than having to give the LEO your driver's license in any of these situations. You try refusing a request for your ID, then let me know how that works out.
No, duty to inform is much worse. Having to provide ID on request allows a person to remain silent, keep their papers/effects secure, and still be in compliance with the law. The burden lies on the officer to ask. With duty to inform the burden lies on the law abiding citizen to speak before being asked to be in compliance.
I thought the argument for permitless concealed carry was that a person should not be thought a criminal for putting on a coat that happens to conceal their firearm. Does not a duty to inform imply that concealing a weapon is a criminal act?
The other amendment that I mentioned...if you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, (and you carry concealed pursuant to this section - ie without a permit) then they must provide you with a safety brochure and have you sign an acknowledgement of receiving the brochure. Can you say back-door state-level, gun registry?!? But everyone's focused on the duty to inform...
Good point. This bill needs to die.
The budget needs to be completely settled, then the Appropriations Committee can allocate monies to it from the General Fund, release it back to the Senate, then on to the Governor's desk. So until the budget is settled, we wait.
Yes, we wait.
Actually I meant in context of the 3 instances where the new law defines the duty to inform. If you're carrying just walking down the street, then I agree - it's totalitarian to demand papers. But if you're stopped for a traffic violation or being arrested, the LEO will demand ID. If you refuse, you're in trouble.
This comparison between guns and cars needs to die. First of all I do not believe that adults should need a license to drive. Every day is a driving exam and we have "instructors" all over the place to inform us when we've done something unsafe. Those people sitting at desks at the DOT license center are not keeping the public safe, law enforcement officers do that. One time I thought I'd search the web on how many unlicensed drivers there are in the USA, turns out no one can make so much as an educated guess. There is so little enforcement on licensing that some estimate that there are tens of millions driving without a license. It is not the license that keeps people safe, it is this inherent nature of humans to keep safe and treat others with respect. The lack of a license does not prevent poor drivers from driving, enforcement officers do that.
I sometimes wonder how many lives would be saved if we got rid of the license to drive and spent that money on law enforcement instead. Same goes for any firearm licensing/registration.
Secondly, there are two very important distinctions between cars and firearms. When we speak of vehicle insurance mandates, vehicle registration, and licensing to drive, this is all required to OPERATE the vehicle on public roads. None of these mandates would apply if I were CARRYING my vehicle, right? I don't need license, registration, and insurance to CARRY the vehicle, therefore I shouldn't need to do such to CARRY a firearm. Then someone would say, "But why would you carry a firearm other than to shoot it? We need these laws to make sure people can safely handle a firearm." That gets back to my first argument, we have the right to travel and we have the right to defend ourselves. With rights come responsibilities, failure to act responsibly should be punished and even then only when it harms others.
I realize that carrying a vehicle is ridiculous. It'd be so much easier to push it.