Shooting in Maine

Status
Not open for further replies.
A few thoughts...

We're still not very good at identifying folks who aren't suited to have weapons - and might just do something awful if not dealt with properly (understatement). From what I've read there were plenty of signs with this individual - by "dealt with properly" I mean mental treatment and even being taken into custody until they're not a danger if necessary (custodial treatment - not jail or prison if they've not committed crimes when dealt with...) if that's what it takes... something we've not shown any inclination to do... Preventing a tragedy like this is worth some effort - rather than all the mechanisms for dealing with an "active shooter" as it happens - or afterwards when he's either captured or killed (and if captured - all the machinery of the justice system -then a life's worth of custodial care...).

As for bars and the prohibition against carrying firearms in bars - that I greatly approve of - and it ought to apply to cops that are not on duty as well. For a four year period as a young cop I'd gone through a divorce and spent too much time in bars off-duty - always armed... Looking back on it that was a very bad idea - and should be prohibited by every police agency (believe I'd have complied with such a requirement - but certainly knew officers who would never have complied willingly with that kind of regulation...). Places that serve alcohol are always hazardous for cops (on or off duty) - just too many opportunities for conflict in my experience. Yes you can have a beverage and not be at risk - but the potential is always there... Most in law enforcement today might or might not agree with my opinion here - but it does come from experience and a bit of perspective years later... My years of drinking while carrying a firearm were the late seventies... Funny thing... when I re-married, I never went to bars at all...
 
With regard to treatment comments. An individual seeking therapy / counseling and not deemed a "risk" by the therapist doesn't get put on a radar so to speak. Anyone can go get help. Court ordered / adjudicated incompetence is another thing entirely.
 
Bill_in_TR said:
I have read in the various accounts about this that the shooter was a firearms instructor and that the firearms used were purchased "legally" fairly recently. And yet I also read that he had mental problems and had in fact undergone treatment for them. So how can they say the firearms were purchased legally if he had mental problems. And how does such a person become a firearms instructor. It seems as though a whole bunch of people dropped the ball on this one.
Click to expand...
Define “purchased legally”? Most people take that to mean he filed out a 4473….but that doesn’t mean he filled it out truthfully about his mental state. Just like no one is ever going to answer “Yes” to the question about having intent to give the weapon to a prohibited person. Those kinds of questions are just so they can get you “after the fact” - they aren’t really for disqualification.

As @JohnKSa said, it sounds like his serious break with reality was a fairly recent event. It does raise the issue, though, of how to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Unfortunately too many of the “red flag” laws are unconstitutional and ignore due process. Maine has a “yellow flag” law that requires both a doctor and a judge to sign off on temporary removal of weapons. How that would show up in a NICS check I don’t know - but in the Lewiston case it doesn’t seem to have been enforced.
 
lemaymiami said:
As for bars and the prohibition against carrying firearms in bars - that I greatly approve of - and it ought to apply to cops that are not on duty as well.
Click to expand...
I agree that anyone drinking should not carry - but creating a slaughter pen just because of the type of establishment is exactly what contributed to the Lewiston body count.
 
A great majority of people just do not carry. I generally carry always, but occasionally I don't, as a practical matter( NJ trips).
 
Navy87Guy said:
I agree that anyone drinking should not carry - but creating a slaughter pen just because of the type of establishment is exactly what contributed to the Lewiston body count.
Click to expand...
Having a drink dose not make one a drunkard. FWIW I rather have a drunk person w a gun then get shot by a mass shooter. Like you said, there is only one cure for the slaughter pen. A bartender cannot be responsible for your safety in such a circumstance.
 
https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-a/title17-Asec1057.pdf

MRS Title 17-A, §1057. POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN AN ESTABLISHMENT LICENSED FOR ON-PREMISES
CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR
Generated
09.28.2022
§1057. Possession of firearms in an establishment licensed for on-premises
consumption of liquor | 1

§1057. Possession of firearms in an establishment licensed for on-premises consumption of liquor

1. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm if:
A. Not being a law enforcement officer or a professional investigator licensed under Title 32,
chapter 89 and actually performing as a professional investigator, the person possesses any firearm
on the premises of a licensed establishment posted to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms
in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of patrons, in violation of the posted
prohibition or restriction; or [PL 2011, c. 366, §2 (AMD).]

B. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or a combination of liquor and drugs
or with an excessive alcohol level, the person possesses a firearm in a licensed establishment. [PL
2009, c. 447, §18 (AMD)



Reading the law... seems to me, if you didn't drink, you could legally carry into an establishment that serves alcohol that is not posted against doing so.

Also note the mention of "with an excessive alcohol level." Maine further defines that: "Excessive alcohol level" means an alcohol level of 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath.


To me that means you could have a beer with dinner at a licensed establishment that is not posted while carrying a firearm legally. So long as you are not legally drunk - having a BAC of 0.08.

I carry everywhere. I can make my own adult decisions regarding alcohol.


Re: Going up against a rifle with a handgun. That's why I carry, train, & practice. I believe we as gun owners and concealed carriers have a duty to intervene against these mass murdering dirt bags. If you're 1st thought is to run and hide, and brag about doing that here, maybe you need to re-evaluate why you are carrying a firearm.

We need more concealed carriers with this mentality:

While the shooter, 20-year-old Douglas Sapirman, fired 24 rounds from an AR-15-style rifle, Dicken did not hesitate to use the Glock handgun he was legally carrying. Sapirman was “neutralized” within two minutes, police said."

 
Having a drink dose not make one a drunkard.
Click to expand...
A better way to say it would be "Having a drink does not automatically make one drunk.
FWIW I rather have a drunk person w a gun then get shot by a mass shooter.
Click to expand...
Being drunk makes a person stupid.

en.wikipedia.org

Carlo M. Cipolla - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The fifth universal law of stupidity is: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

I don't think a drunk person is going to rack up the kind of body count that a mass shooter will, so if it's just a one-for-one comparison, I think I would agree with you. The problem is that there are lots of drunk people and mass shooters are quite rare. So it's not a one-for-one comparison.
To me that means you could have a beer with dinner at a licensed establishment that is not posted while carrying a firearm legally.
Click to expand...
Probably true. Not recommending it, but it's probably within the letter of the law.
So long as you are not legally drunk - having a BAC of 0.08.
Click to expand...
That's not exactly what the law says. There are two stipulations, not just the one about BAC.

A person can be "under the influence" AND can not have an "excessive alcohol level". The law clearly states both of those criteria separately and clearly states that either one of those is an offense while carrying. A person, for example, who starts displaying coordination/judgement problems at 0.07, due to inexperience with alcohol or some other condition, could be considered to be "under the influence" even if they aren't quite at the threshold for "excessive alcohol level".
 
JohnKSa said:
That's not exactly what the law says. There are two stipulations, not just the one about BAC.

A person can be "under the influence" AND can not have an "excessive alcohol level". The law clearly states both of those criteria separately and clearly states that either one of those is an offense while carrying. A person, for example, who starts displaying coordination/judgement problems at 0.07, due to inexperience with alcohol or some other condition, could be considered to be "under the influence" even if they aren't quite at the threshold for "excessive alcohol level".
Click to expand...

The problem there is "under the influence" must have a definition.
Your mention of 0.07 is not in the Maine law. Don't add things to the law that aren't there.

I do agree with you that at 0.07 coordination / judgement problems start presenting themselves in those inexperienced with alcohol.


Googling - What is the BAC after 1 standard drink?

"In a person of average build, one standard drink will raise the BAC by approximately 0.01 to 0.03% in an hour."

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) and the effects of alcohol | SA Health

Explains how blood alcohol concentration (BAC) relates to alcohol-related behaviour.
www.sahealth.sa.gov.au www.sahealth.sa.gov.au
 
drobs said:
The problem there is "under the influence" must have a definition.
Your mention of 0.07 is not in the Maine law. Don't add things to the law that aren't there.
Click to expand...

The .08% level is the definition for “excessive alcohol level” - not “under the influencel. The CCW title refers to the relevant sections of Title 29 for operating a motor vehicle.


That defines “under the influence” as “means being under the influence of alcohol, a drug other than alcohol, a combination of drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs.“

There are no limits or thresholds mentioned. It is completely subjective (and therefore dangerous). Another section of Title 29-A, though, does address the results of blood tests. When operating a motor vehicle, less that .05% is considered prima facie evidence of not being under the influence and over .08% is considered conclusive proof you are. In between, however, it is a factor to be taken into account with other things, like behavior. Since the. CCW Title references the motor vehicle section of Title 29, it stands to reason those limits would apply to CCW. (Although the limits for operating a plane a stricter: .02% and .04%, respectively.)


So @JohnKSa ’s example of a .07% BAC is spot on. I agree with not reading anything into the law that’s not there - but you also have to read the entire law as it’s written.
 
Last edited:
lemaymiami said:
We're still not very good at identifying folks who aren't suited to have weapons
Click to expand...

No, we are not, and that isn't the fault of the folks in question, but in our inability for prognostication for a virtually unknowable situation. At any given time in the US, there are likely 1000s or 10s of 1000s of folks who are mentally compromised and mentally should not be in possession of a firearm. Most should not be driving, either, but that is another issue.

Keep in mind that at any given time, some 20% of the US population has mental illness and 1 in 25 adults has a serious mental illness. https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/learn/index.htm Some is uncontrolled and not a problem for society. Much is temporary, such a loss of a loved one, job loss, etc. Some is controlled and not a problem. The issue isn't whether or not the mental issues are under control, but whether or not the person is disruptive to society. The thing is, society doesn't care if you are mentally compromised or not, so long as you are not disruptive. When you become disruptive to society is when you are a problem, whether you are mentally well off or mentally compromised. We generally do not take guns away from people who not a problem to society. Sadly, there is no 1:1 correlation between being a problem to society and having mental issues. There are people who exist with mental issues, some fairly significant, who manage their lives reasonably well and you would not know they had issues, until they act out, if they ever do.

Now, if we wait a day or two and sample our population again, there are still likely 1000s or 10s of 1000s of folks who are mentally compromised and mentally should not be in possession of a firearm, only some of the members of the population have changed. Some of the people who weren't doing very well are doing better now and some people who weren't to the level of being considered compromised yesterday are compromised today. In other words, while there will always be those who should not have guns, for a lot of other people, such a restriction would be episodic or one offs. Many of these people are well liked and loved and nobody would expect them to do such a thing, yet mental states and real or perceived situational parameters align and pushes the person over the edge where the person acts, though in reality, they have likely been over the edge many times and managed to keep things in control.
 
DetBrowning said:
With this awful shooting event in Maine, does anyone else find it odd that not one person in the bar or bowling alley was not armed and able to confront the shooter.
I understand the relevance of having a handgun vs a rifle and perhaps someone who may have been armed was busy looking for an escape route, cover or concealment, however, as a former LEO I never go anywhere unarmed if possible. I am in prayer for all those affected, it's awful!
Click to expand...
THE reason I stay clear of "gun free zones".
Also retired LEO and I go armed = period.
Unless I need go through a magnetometer or get wanded.
If that is the case and I MUST go,it will be under duress.
I know it is very quaint to quote bumper stickers.
BUT the fact is "It is better to be tried by 12,than carried by 6 ".
I am sick to my stomach that no one was able to stop that turd.
Now it looks like it was his mental health [ of lack thereof ] and a domestic thing as he was looking for his ex lady at the bowling alley & the bar.
How in the wide world of sports he was not tagged by the military as he made threats to shoot up the base.
Or a Dr did not tag him "yellow flag" ,is far beyond my ken.
 
JohnKSa said:
According to his family, the guy's mental break was relatively recent. It's not clear at this time when he acquired the specific firearm used in the shootings--before or after his mental issues. Besides, if he wasn't involuntarily committed, he's not legally disqualified from owning/purchasing firearms. It is clear that his firearms training came long before he began to hear voices.
Click to expand...
Usually people start hearing the voices way before 40.
In the military.
Seems like he was left alone to do whatever he was going to do.
The whole thing does have a strong mkUltra vibe to it.
 
DetBrowning said:
With this awful shooting event in Maine, does anyone else find it odd that not one person in the bar or bowling alley was not armed and able to confront the shooter.
Click to expand...
He may have been crazy but he wasn’t stupid. He picked places he knew reduced the likelihood of armed response - because most people who carry are responsible citizens and obey the law….even when that means leaving your means to defend yourself in the car.
 
Navy87Guy said:
He may have been crazy but he wasn’t stupid. He picked places he knew reduced the likelihood of armed response - because most people who carry are responsible citizens and obey the law….even when that means leaving your means to defend yourself in the car.
Click to expand...
some of the locals in interviews said he was a regular at those places. he picked them as places he went to and hung out well before he thought of what happened is my understanding.

another witness said he stopped firing and had to rack the slide several times. I'm not a situational expert, but I feel like anyone with a full size 9mm handgun, or medium, whatever, a good one they can operate well, would take that opportunity. It does seem odd that nobody did, but my heavens who really knows how they would behave in that situation. I might freeze up, my guess is most people would without a lot more training than I have.
 
lemaymiami said:
We're still not very good at identifying folks who aren't suited to have weapons - and might just do something awful if not dealt with properly (understatement). From what I've read there were plenty of signs with this individual - by "dealt with properly" I mean mental treatment and even being taken into custody until they're not a danger if necessary (custodial treatment - not jail or prison if they've not committed crimes when dealt with...) if that's what it takes... something we've not shown any inclination to do... Preventing a tragedy like this is worth some effort - rather than all the mechanisms for dealing with an "active shooter" as it happens - or afterwards when he's either captured or killed (and if captured - all the machinery of the justice system -then a life's worth of custodial care...).
Click to expand...
Yeah, well we're not allowed to do that. Some time in the '80s we decided it violated their rights to keep the seriously and potentially dangerous mentally ill institutionalized so we turned them out onto the streets and shut down the facilities.

Actions have consequences.
 
film495 said:
some of the locals in interviews said he was a regular at those places. he picked them as places he went to and hung out well before he thought of what happened is my understanding.
Click to expand...

This is common. People often shoot up the locations where there were issues (real or perceived). If a person has trouble at a given school, they don't go shoot up a different school. They shoot up where the problems were or were they expect the people of the problems to be (e.g., Sutherland Springs). If he thought people were talking about him and such, chances are it was at the places he hung out, where he would have encountered said people.
 
GEM said:
This might get closed. However, pretty good research has indicated two things:
1. Most folks with permits or licenses don't religiously carry. One survey said 85% didn't. I don't know about consitutional carry types.
2. The vast majority of folks with permits (over 90%) have no significant training beyond a state mandated course (if there is one). Just a box once a year at the square range.

Thus, there's nothing surprising about the lack of carry. I can see it would be a pain when bowling. In a restaurant, return to points 1 and 2. Folks don't carry and train. I pulled my hair out (so that's where it went?) trying to get Texans who talked the gun talk, what ammo should I carry, I'm buying another gun, etc. to actually take a realistic course or go to a USPSA or IDPA match. Wouldn't do it. Shooting at a rock at the 'ranch' was training for them. The psychology behind such behavior: Lazy, scared to be shown up as not an intrinsic manly warrior? If you do go to match or train - yep, you will look inept at first. So learn - some manly men can't stand that.
Click to expand...
I resemble that description. I hope I never find myself in a situation like that. If I did, I would be only focused on escaping. Even if I got trained, I would still be focused on escaping.
 
Most quality, all purpose defensive training emphasizes escaping and only defending your and yours if you can't escape. Entering the fight when you can escape is a long debated issue that usually ends in insults about folks morals or lack of morals. Folks will say they can't live with themselves if they choose to escape as compared to entering the fight to save innocents. It is a cold blooded rational vs. emotional decision. Many nuances.

I know very highly trained folks who take the cold blooded view of saving themselves as they are not law enforcement or the military. It's about 50-50 in some surveys.
 
Except that's actually not what he reports. A link to the article was provided and reading it reveals that:

He reports that the bowling alley is posted gun free based on a picture from 2021 of a sign that is of insufficient resolution to read. He does have some other sources that indicate that it was gun free at the time of the shooting, primarily a somewhat vague post from a ME state legislator who he assumes has current information but who may be posting based on the same 2021 information Lott was using.

He reports that the bar is LIKELY gun free but states that he has no proof. As mentioned above, bars in ME are not automatically gun free. They must be posted to be gun free. Lott indicates that he has reports from two unnamed sources saying it was gun free and one unnamed source that says carry was allowed there. The last source saying carry was allowed is included as an update--the original article just mentioned the two unnamed sources claiming it was gun free.

So to be completely accurate Lott reports that one business is gun free (based primarily on information from 2021) and that another one was likely gun free but he admits he has no proof to provide and that his sources are providing conflicting information.
 
Robert Card bought the .308 Ruger SFAR rifle used in the assault two weeks before he was committed to Keller Army Community Hospital for a two week stay in July 2023.
 
We've drifted way off topic. This is no longer an ST&T discussion. You guys can continue this discussion in one of the threads in GGD,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Straight Talk on Armed Defense
Replies
1
Views
395
strambo
S
C
  • Locked
Am I missing something? (point vs. practical shooting vs. etc)
Replies
4
Views
493
7677
7
P
  • Locked
LD 778 Maine
Replies
1
Views
349
ryan in maine
R
jamz
  • Locked
Maine right to carry law threatened
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
gezzer
G
G
  • Locked
Extremely Close Quarters Shooting
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Rob Pincus
R
Back
Top