Proposals to amend concealed carry laws saw pushback from business community, law enforcement
Tim Russell of Sydney was among the minority of demonstrators on Jan. 3, 2024 who protested in support of gun rights. (Photo by Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star)
Among the gun legislation before the Maine Legislature this session are proposals to amend constitutional and concealed carry laws that drew concerns from the business and law enforcement communities.
The Legislature's Judiciary Committee held public hearings Wednesday for eight gun bills that were broken into two groups to make public input more efficient. While half of the bills related to various aspects of concealed carry law, the other four dealt with the definition of machine guns, magazine capacity and serial numbers on firearms.
Laura Whitcomb, president of Gun Owners of Maine, said the group supported the four that would help standardize the laws around carrying firearms in the state, including the differences between having a permit to carry a concealed weapon and not having one.
'If you are not a person who generally carries a firearm, it might be difficult to understand that most people who carry a firearm do so on a regular basis,' she said to explain why consistency in statute is important for those individuals.
Maine residents can carry a handgun without a permit if they are 21 years old and not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm — what's colloquially referred to as constitutional carry. There are exceptions allowing people who are 18 to 20 years old to carry without a permit if they are active duty military or have been honorably discharged.
Rep. Alicia Collins (R-Sidney) is seeking to lower the constitutional carry age to 18 with LD 424 on the grounds that someone is considered a legal adult at that age and entrusted with other decisions,such as voting or enlisting in the military.
Maine Legislature weighs updates to machine gun definition, ghost gun regulations
Under current law, an employer can't prohibit an employee from storing a firearm in their vehicle if the employee has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm, so long as the vehicle is locked and the firearm is stored out of sight. However, Collins is looking to remove the requirement that an employee have a valid concealed carry permit with LD 998.
The Maine State Chamber of Commerce opposed this bill citing concerns over employer choice and workplace safety.
Additionally, Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-Skowhegan) introduced LD 1049, which would repeal a requirement that someone carrying a concealed handgun without a permit must inform a law enforcement officer immediately that they have a firearm during a traffic stop or other such encounters.
Maine State Police and the Maine Department of Public Safety opposed this proposal over safety concerns for both the officers and other individuals involved in those encounters.
The final carry-related proposal came from Sen. David Haggan (R-Penobscot). He said LD 829 would clean up confusion in existing law by making it clear that someone can carry a concealed firearm in a state park, so long as they are not otherwise prohibited from possessing one. It removes the ambiguity that someone must have a permit to carry in a state park or Acadia National Park, he said.
The bill includes an emergency preamble so it could take effect immediately upon passage with a two-thirds vote. This means it could be in place for the summer recreation season.
Justin Davis, state director for the National Rifle Association, argued LD 829 is important not only for protection against wildlife in the Maine woods, but a security measure for females hiking alone.
However, Friends of Acadia, an organization dedicated to protecting and preserving the park, opposed the proposal for the sake of the millions of visitors who come to the park each year for tranquility.
The Gun Safety Coalition of Maine opposed all four proposals, which they characterized as 'very dangerous.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines' use of eminent domain
Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill Wednesday aimed at CO2 pipelines and eminent domain. She's pictured at her 2025 Condition of the State Address Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill pertaining to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely. House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain. Reynolds, in a statement, said she shared the bill's goal of 'protecting landowners' but the bill lacked the 'clear, careful lines' drawn in good policy. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,' Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto. Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its 'leadership position' as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets. Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota. Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels. In a statement following the governor's veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face 'very real, very severe economic consequences.' 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,' Shaw said. 'Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.' A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins. Farmers 'need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa's agricultural industry and economy,' the statement said. Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed. 'Eminent domain' allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities. Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska's Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill's insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa. Reynolds cited this example in her explanation, and said the 'arbitrary' term limits and insurance requirements would make it 'difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment' in Iowa. 'Those who crafted the bill said they don't want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary easements,' Reynolds said. 'But that is exactly what the bill does.' Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her 'thoughtful and thorough review' of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project 'opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' 'Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,' a spokesperson said in the statement. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.' Opponents to the pipeline project, who were supportive of HF 639, argue the pipeline would negatively impact their properties and health, and that sequestering CO2 does not constitute a 'public use' deserving of eminent domain rights. Landowners opposed to the project lobbied state lawmakers for four years before a bill was debated, and ultimately passed, in the Senate and sent to the governor. Since the bill landed on the governor's desk, landowners have encouraged Reynolds to support Iowa GOP values on protecting property rights. Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a 'debate as old as the Republic.' 'I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,' Reynolds said. 'But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain.' Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that 'threatens' the state's 'energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.' Mary Powell, a Shelby County landowner opposed to the pipeline, said the veto shows that the state motto of, 'Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain' are 'just empty words' to the governor. 'Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights,' Powell said in a statement. Another landowner, Don Johanssen from Cherokee County, said the governor's decision was 'beyond words,' especially as the bill would have given landowners 'some liability coverage' from hazardous pipelines. The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline. 'This is a sad day for Iowa that will be long remembered,' Johanssen said. Reynolds said the bill would impact 'more than just CO2 infrastructure' and would change permitting rules 'across the board,' giving 'uncertainty into critical energy projects.' Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements 'untenable.' The American Petroleum Institute's Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had 'unprecedented and unfeasible requirements' that would have hindered future projects in the state. 'Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,' Karbo said. 'We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.' Reynolds said HF 639 included 'a few helpful provisions' and the surrounding debate 'highlighted' areas for progress. 'I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration,' Reynolds said. 'We can do better.' Reynolds, who is not running for reelection in 2026, said she is 'committed' to working with legislation to 'strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property.' Taking one element from HF 639, Reynolds will ask the IUC to require all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensure at least one commissioner is present at every informational meeting. In a statement from Iowa House Republicans, Speaker Pat Grassley said he has requested members sign a petition to reconvene the Legislature in a special session. 'This veto is a major setback for Iowa,' Grassley said in the statement. 'It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain.' Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he was 'very disappointed' in the governor's decision and that he was supportive of a special session to override the veto. Two-thirds of the Legislature must sign a petition to request a special session, and to override a veto, two-thirds of the members from each chamber must vote to pass the bill again. Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader for the chamber, said he expects most of his caucus will 'not be interested in any attempt' to override the governor's veto. The bill likely would not have advanced in the Senate had it not been for a dozen Republican senators who vowed to block necessary budget legislation until the chamber debated eminent domain. The 12 were also joined by Senate Democrats in pushing for amendments, which were ultimately defeated, and approval of the bill. Senate Democrats said the fight for property rights will continue. 'I'm disappointed by the governor's veto of HF639, but, unfortunately, I cannot say I'm surprised,' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said. 'There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain.' One of the 12 to disagree with the Senate majority, Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, said signing the bill was 'the single option available' to protect the rights of impacted landowners. Alons pledged to 'never quit working' on the issue, but said that means 'very little' to landowners who have been impacted by the 'unprecedented, and unconstitutional land grab.' 'To be clear: the Iowa government has given this private company the right to take people's land for one reason: corporate earnings,' Alons said in a statement. 'This has nothing to do with public use. It's absolutely not necessary for the ethanol industry in our state … And it certainly is not what the founders had in mind.' Alons said when the Legislature returns in January, he and other lawmakers 'will use every tool at our disposal' to 'return property rights back to the people.' Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored the legislation, wrote in a social media post he was 'profoundly disappointed' by the veto. Holt said the state constitution and the Republican platform are clear in their message that eminent domain is for public use projects. 'Today the Governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests,' Holt wrote. Holt said Reynolds, and the Senate had opportunities of the past several years to offer their own suggestions to the eminent domain issue instead of opposing House legislation. 'On behalf of the people of Iowa and their fundamental property rights, the Governor's veto should be overridden,' he wrote. 'This fight for who we are as Republicans is far from over.' House Democratic Leader Rep. Brian Meyer said parties in the House collaborated to 'protect property rights.' 'At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers,' Meyer said in a statement. The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
WV Board of Education to keep vaccine requirements against governor's wishes
CHARLESTON, (WBOY) — The West Virginia Board of Education voted unanimously Wednesday to keep the current vaccine requirements for students, despite an executive order from Gov. Patrick Morrisey aiming to grant religious exemptions to the rule. The board told State Superintendent Michell Blatt to direct local public schools to follow current compulsory immunization law, which does not include religious exemptions. A bill that would have granted philosophical exemptions failed in the West Virginia Legislature this past session. Randolph County Schools placed under 'State of Emergency' The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia also filed a lawsuit last month attempting to block the governor's executive order. Gov. Morrisey has reaffirmed in the past that his executive order will not be rescinded. He claimed that religious exemptions for vaccines are necessary under the federal Protection for Religion Act of 2023, which 'prohibits government action that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion.' As of this publication, Gov. Morrisey's office has yet to issue a comment on Wednesday's vote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maine won't require medical cannabis to be tested for contaminants -- this year
Jun. 11—Maine's medical cannabis providers have once again fought off a controversial requirement to start testing their products — at least for now. A legislative committee killed one bill and carried over another that would have instituted testing and tracking requirements that industry members have said for years would put them out of business or force price increases. While Maine's recreational cannabis market requires testing for contaminants and potency and includes potency limits, the medical market requires neither. Maine is the only state that doesn't mandate medical cannabis to be tested. LD 104, proposed by the state's Office of Cannabis Policy and sponsored by Rep. Marc Malon, D-Biddeford, would have required seed-to-sale plant tracking and standardized chemical, mold and heavy metal testing between recreational and medical cannabis. LD 1847, sponsored by Rep. Anne Graham, D-North Yarmouth, sought to do the same while also adding potency caps on edibles. The latter will be taken up again next year. "I have listened and I've read testimony and I've worked with public health advocates to make sure that the medical cannabis industry survives, thrives and (can) be regulated so that when patients buy cannabis, they know that they have a safe product and they know what the potency is," Graham said. " ... Clearly our regulations and how we look at (testing), it needs work, a lot of work." But it's also "hugely complicated," she said, and needs more time. Jennifer Belcher, president of the Maine Cannabis Union, said there's a "sense of relief now that we know that nothing is going through this year. If either bill passed as written, she said "the medical program would be done." Belcher was encouraged by how receptive the committee was to the industry's concerns, and while "it is nerve-racking that we are going to face this next session," there's also an exciting opportunity for collaboration. "(LD) 1847 gives us an opportunity to focus on the facts, the research, the science," she said. AN ONGOING FIGHT John Hudak, director of the office, has been clear that implementing a testing program is a top priority, but this session was the first time since he was appointed to the office in late 2022 that an official proposal has been before the committee. Following a 2022 law, any major substantive rule-making from the department must be approved by the Legislature. "If a business model is one in which producing clean cannabis is too costly, there's something wrong with the business model," he said previously. "We're not going to focus on profits at the expense of patients' health." Supporters of the bill have referenced a 2023 report by the Office of Cannabis Policy that found about 45% of the cannabis in Maine's medical market would fail the standards set for the recreational market. They also pointed to the influx of suspected illegal growers allegedly tied to Chinese organized crime who have been selling bulk cannabis at "rock bottom" prices to legal dispensaries. However, in a public hearing last month, dozens of medical cannabis caregivers and consumers testified in opposition to the bills and the committee received roughly 1,000 pieces of written testimony. They criticized the state's testing program, citing several recalls in the recreational program last year that have brought the science behind the tests and the state's standards into question. The recent recalls, they argue, prove the testing doesn't work and shouldn't be forced on the medical program. The fight is just the latest in a series of uphill battles for Maine's medical cannabis providers. Oversaturation, competition with recreational cannabis and high costs have caused revenue to plummet and people to leave the industry in droves. Unlike many other states, Maine's medical cannabis market has always outperformed its recreational counterpart. But the gap between the two is narrowing, and last year the medical market brought in about $280 million (down from $371 in 2021), while the recreational market brought in $217 million. The number of providers, known in the industry as caregivers, has been cleaved in half from its 2016 peak of 3,257 to 1,627 in May, according to state data. "We are literally fighting for our lives at this point," Belcher said. OTHER BILLS The committee carried over several other bills, including one that would require the director of the Office of Cannabis Policy be confirmed by the Legislature rather than appointed by the commissioner of the Department of Administrative and Financial Services, which oversees the office. Sen. Craig Hickman, D-Winthrop, who drafted the bill, said the committee needed time to investigate whether there are other directors, like the heads of the state's alcohol and gambling control agencies, that should also be subject to legislative approval. Lawmakers also carried over a proposal to allow cannabis "social clubs" or public consumption, based off recommendations in a task force report this winter. Earlier this session, the committee killed two bills that would have implemented revenue sharing across Maine's cannabis industry, meaning towns and cities that allow recreational businesses could receive a portion of the tax revenue they generate. Legislators hoped the bills would encourage more towns and cities to allow cannabis shops and help them recoup the costs of overseeing the recreational program. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
