Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

It should be noted this is not a comprehensive list.

• Don't insult one another or the subjects of BDN stories. You may be ticked off at what someone did or said, but you can explain that without resorting to name-calling or obscenity. Remember that young people are on this site too.
• That nasty line that makes your buddies go "haw, haw"? You're better than that.
• Comments should be your own work, not copied and pasted from elsewhere, though brief quoted passages to make your point are fine. And please don't use all capital letters. There's no need to shout.
• Stay focused on the issue in the article. Off-topic posts will be deleted.
• This isn't a forum to chat about your personal life.
• Some ideas — the fate of the earth, abortion, gun control, the nature of God — aren't going to be resolved in a reader forum, so no need to get frustrated if others don't see your point of view. State your position once and leave it at that.
• If you mouse over each comment you will see a "Flag" button. Please use it if you feel comments on the site are out of line. Quite often, we won't see a comment until it's reported.
• Questions about why a comment was — or wasn't — deleted? E-mail us at web@bangordailynews.com and let us know your username and where you posted or saw the comment.

That's about it: Stick to writing about the stories; be civil; be kind; enlighten your neighbors. And we'll keep moderating posts to try to ensure everyone meets those standards.

• Anonymous

  What good is a gun that is locked up?

• Kevin_Of_Bangor

  Do you really need someone to explain this to you? Did you not read the previous article? If you did not, there is a link in the above article which should make things clear.

• Anonymous

  You Missed the Point!

  So tell me, what good is a gun thats locked up?

• Anonymous

  A gun locked in my vehicle that I cannot bring into my place of employment is a lot better than a gun locked up at my house.

  Like Kevin said, read the article.

• Anonymous

  I have been a concealed firearm permit holder for over 30 years and I worked for an employer who did not allow weapons in your vehicle while on their property . During my 37 years of employment I always respected my employers rights as a property owner because I believed his rights were just as important to him as mine are to me.

• PabMainer

  Well stated and agree…..

• Anonymous

  I do not support this bill, as it ignores employer rights over personal rights. At my employer, a public school, the entrance signs clearly state that no weapons are allowed on the premises. This is to ensure the physical and psychological safety of the students and staff, and to provide the context for prosecution of a violation.
  I assume that this bill will now allow an exclusion to that school policy, as it it not stated specifically in the text of the bill that certain employers are exempt. Should the entrance signs to my school now say “No weapons except in the case of employees’ concealed weapons”? I can’t imagine a positive public response to that.

• Anonymous

  So is it legal for me to keep my 12 gauge in my trunk? Or does this only apply to hand guns?

• Mike k

  so, did his property rights somehow trump your right to defend yourself ?

• Mike k

  is it your car ?
  if so, then you do what you want with it.

• Anonymous

  What about the employer’s right to hire or not hire who they want to?  Or fire someone for reasons they think are ok.   There are so many places where the government has told employers what they can and can’t do with their own businesses.  My car is my personal property and I should be able to keep a gun in it no matter where its parked.  If you’d like to get down to it the Maine State Constitution states  ”Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”  

• Anonymous

  Isn’t it considered concealed if it is hidden in the trunk?

• Kevin_Of_Bangor

  This is what it states on the back of my CFP.

  This permit does not authorize the holder to possess a firearm in violation of any applicable state or federal law, or within the State of Maine where possession is prohibited.

  Schools are under federal laws, not state. So only someone that desires to break the law is going to bring a gun onto school grounds.

• Anonymous

  I thought they were saying how much they had to do before the end of the session? Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, it is absolutely, in no way, the most pressing matter before our state. 

• Anonymous

  I don’t know why the Democrats are trying to use “private proeprty rights” of business owners to argueagainst thebill.  They have successfully and legally turned a “private property” business into a “Place of Public Accomodation” under the “Americans With Disabilities Act”, thus regulating said businesses and forcing them to follow any enacted law, rule or regulation.

• AionNV

  How is someone suddenly unable to defend oneself, simply by not having a gun in their car or truck ?

  What a waste of legislative time better spent on economic issues.

• AionNV

  How is someone suddenly unable to defend oneself, simply by not having a gun in their car or truck ?

  What a waste of legislative time better spent on economic issues.

• AionNV

  How is someone suddenly unable to defend oneself, simply by not having a gun in their car or truck ?

  What a waste of legislative time better spent on economic issues.

• AionNV

  How is someone suddenly unable to defend oneself, simply by not having a gun in their car or truck ?

  What a waste of legislative time better spent on economic issues.

• AionNV

  How is someone suddenly unable to defend oneself, simply by not having a gun in their car or truck ?

  What a waste of legislative time better spent on economic issues.

• Anonymous

  Apples and oranges. If you were confined to a wheelchair you would not use that as an example.

• Anonymous

  Apples and oranges. If you were confined to a wheelchair you would not use that as an example.

• Anonymous

  Apples and oranges. If you were confined to a wheelchair you would not use that as an example.

• Anonymous

  Apples and oranges. If you were confined to a wheelchair you would not use that as an example.

• Anonymous

  Apples and oranges. If you were confined to a wheelchair you would not use that as an example.

• Anonymous

  Both sides have compelling arguments. As an employer, its your duty to protect all of your employees. That said, a disgruntled employee bent on the ultimate revenge would not heed any company policies. If someone at work went nuts like that, I would appreciate someone having the ability to be able to defend those he is able.

• Anonymous

  Agreed!

• Anonymous

  Most of the stuff they are concerning themselves with are not the pressing issues of this state! (not close…)

• Anonymous

  I totally agree with you – some places, such as elementary schools do not warrant the use of deadly force by untrained citizens… it endangers the lives of children. 

• Anonymous

  How many jobs will this create?

• Anonymous

  I think you are misunderstanding what I said.   Businesses are no longer “private property”, they are now deemed by law to be”places of public accomodation”.  The Democrats arguement that the business holds private property rights is moot, as they have dissolved those private property rights by enacting the “Americans With Disabilities Act”.     bananas and bananas.

• Anonymous

  I find it ironic that the Democrats, who have passed laws requiring businesses to hire and accomodate people they don’t want to, now believe in private property rights.

• Anonymous

  Does this mean places like EMMC that prohibit weapons now have to live with this? Does this mean that Acadia Hospital could have a patient get out, break into a car and have a weapon to take back in the hospital. Seems that if a business can tell an employee what to wear, how to talk, then why can’t they say no weapons on my property. You can’t take a weapon into the court house so it ok for the state to say not on our property but the private land owner has no say.  

• Anonymous

  I agree….and we could add churches, of course, and some other public places.  This is no panacea.

• Anonymous

  I agree….and we could add churches, of course, and some other public places.  This is no panacea.

• Anonymous

  Excellent question!

• Anonymous

  Excellent question!

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Kobuk-Volbane/100002408203386 Kobuk Volbane

  wasn’t this bill presented by a Democrat?

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Kobuk-Volbane/100002408203386 Kobuk Volbane

  wasn’t this bill presented by a Democrat?

• http://www.facebook.com/travai Travis Reid Nadeau

  Seems like your assessment was built on some mutual respect and careful consideration.  It’s obviously not just some knee-jerk opinion based on cultural-conditioning.  It’s appreciated.

• http://www.facebook.com/travai Travis Reid Nadeau

  Seems like your assessment was built on some mutual respect and careful consideration.  It’s obviously not just some knee-jerk opinion based on cultural-conditioning.  It’s appreciated.

• Anonymous

  Oh! So your looking for a job? 

• Anonymous

  Oh! So your looking for a job? 

• Anonymous

  Richard Cebra, R-Naples

• Anonymous

  Richard Cebra, R-Naples

• Anonymous

  Its great how 3 months ago all the liberals were crying because business owners had too many rights and the people were being oppressed, and now this happens and its all about how business owners should have all the rights to tell their employees how to dress, act, what they can keep in their cars etc.

• Anonymous

  I know, like getting that mural put back up. when will they learn?

• Anonymous

  I know, like getting that mural put back up. when will they learn?

• Anonymous

  I know, like getting that mural put back up. when will they learn?

• Anonymous

  Only if its loaded, unloaded it dosent matter

• Anonymous

  Only if its loaded, unloaded it dosent matter

• Anonymous

  Only if its loaded, unloaded it dosent matter

• Anonymous

  Only if its loaded, unloaded it dosent matter

• Anonymous

  Only if its loaded, unloaded it dosent matter

• Anonymous

  We shall see!

• Anonymous

     So what if I carried a permited concealed weapon and my Employer didn’t know the differance because it was Concealed!

      Calling it his right to protect his employees is a bunch of malarky as well as calling it a condition of employment. I didn’t carry it on his property, I carried it on my property, ME!

• Anonymous

  The media is so disgusting as it says these employers have some “right” to dictate what is in my car, WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED ON THEIR PROPERTY.  This is not an abridgement of “property rights” of employers at all.  Good grief.  They can still tell you to park elsewhere.  The issue, is employers will allow you to park, but then micromanage you and micromanage what is inside YOUR property (i.e. inside you car). Big corporations are always anti 2nd amendment (and anti individual) because the establishment is anti 2nd amendment and big corporations are essentially nothing but w-hor-es for the establishment.

• Anonymous

  The flaw in your argument is that someone with the intent to do harm will actually obey rules like “no guns on campus” like the rest of the law abiding citizens. That simply isn’t true. Just as ridiculous as a “restraining order”… The piece of paper doesnt actually restrain a crazy psycho from coming back and killing his wife and then possibly himself just the law abiding. Most of us have never been in a real situation where we have “nothing to live for” which throws out most/all of the rules we live with as part of a kind society.

• Anonymous

  Again, you miss the point. Bussinesses can post signs saying “Must wear shoes and shirt”. Thats their right. But to deny access, by inaccessabilitiy, is to deny access to just certain people.  This doesn’t force bussiness to follow any enacted law, just this one. The question of carrying arms onto the workplace is still open, but I stand by my accessment, apples to oranges!

• Anonymous

  You are looking for a job finally? That’s great. Being productive and working will do wonders for your self esteem.

• Anonymous

  A person who has a concealed carry permit should be able to keep a weapon in their locked vehicle. For instance a person living under the threat of domestic violance should have the protection to and from work. This same protection could possibly extend to a fellow worker.

• Anonymous

  Again, you miss the point. Bussinesses can post signs saying “Must wear shoes and shirt”. Thats their right. But to deny access, by inaccessabilitiy, is to deny access to just certain people. This doesn’t force bussiness to follow any enacted law, just this one. The question of carrying arms onto the workplace is still open, but I stand by my accessment, apples to oranges!     

  *****************************************************************

  ok, I’m going to explain this once more…hopefully you understand this time….. Democrats, by enacting the federal law called the “Americans With Disabilities Act” (which is a whole slew of LAWS that private businesses must follow) have deemed these private businesses to NOW be “public”, as the “AWDA” now declares these businesses to be “places of PUBLIC accomodation”.  The businesses have LOST their private status.  So, for the Democrats to NOW claim that these now PUBLIC businesses are private is plain silly.

  btw, businesses that post signs that say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” are not posting those signs of their own free will.  They are mandated to post them by the Board of Health.

• Anonymous

  Again, you miss the point. Bussinesses can post signs saying “Must wear shoes and shirt”. Thats their right. But to deny access, by inaccessabilitiy, is to deny access to just certain people. This doesn’t force bussiness to follow any enacted law, just this one. The question of carrying arms onto the workplace is still open, but I stand by my accessment, apples to oranges!     

  *****************************************************************

  ok, I’m going to explain this once more…hopefully you understand this time….. Democrats, by enacting the federal law called the “Americans With Disabilities Act” (which is a whole slew of LAWS that private businesses must follow) have deemed these private businesses to NOW be “public”, as the “AWDA” now declares these businesses to be “places of PUBLIC accomodation”.  The businesses have LOST their private status.  So, for the Democrats to NOW claim that these now PUBLIC businesses are private is plain silly.

  btw, businesses that post signs that say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” are not posting those signs of their own free will.  They are mandated to post them by the Board of Health.

• Anonymous

  Again, you miss the point. Bussinesses can post signs saying “Must wear shoes and shirt”. Thats their right. But to deny access, by inaccessabilitiy, is to deny access to just certain people. This doesn’t force bussiness to follow any enacted law, just this one. The question of carrying arms onto the workplace is still open, but I stand by my accessment, apples to oranges!     

  *****************************************************************

  ok, I’m going to explain this once more…hopefully you understand this time….. Democrats, by enacting the federal law called the “Americans With Disabilities Act” (which is a whole slew of LAWS that private businesses must follow) have deemed these private businesses to NOW be “public”, as the “AWDA” now declares these businesses to be “places of PUBLIC accomodation”.  The businesses have LOST their private status.  So, for the Democrats to NOW claim that these now PUBLIC businesses are private is plain silly.

  btw, businesses that post signs that say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” are not posting those signs of their own free will.  They are mandated to post them by the Board of Health.

• Anonymous

  Again, you miss the point. Bussinesses can post signs saying “Must wear shoes and shirt”. Thats their right. But to deny access, by inaccessabilitiy, is to deny access to just certain people. This doesn’t force bussiness to follow any enacted law, just this one. The question of carrying arms onto the workplace is still open, but I stand by my accessment, apples to oranges!     

  *****************************************************************

  ok, I’m going to explain this once more…hopefully you understand this time….. Democrats, by enacting the federal law called the “Americans With Disabilities Act” (which is a whole slew of LAWS that private businesses must follow) have deemed these private businesses to NOW be “public”, as the “AWDA” now declares these businesses to be “places of PUBLIC accomodation”.  The businesses have LOST their private status.  So, for the Democrats to NOW claim that these now PUBLIC businesses are private is plain silly.

  btw, businesses that post signs that say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” are not posting those signs of their own free will.  They are mandated to post them by the Board of Health.

• Anonymous

  More employees will be needed for the morgue.

• Anonymous

  More employees will be needed for the morgue.

• Anonymous

  Sure, Democrats forced it through:

  a) September 7, 1989 the ADA passed in the Senate by a 76-8 margin
  b) May 22, 1990 the ADA is passed in the House by a UNANIMOUS voice vote
  c) Reported by the joint conference committee on July 12, 1990; agreed to by the House of Representatives on July 12, 1990 (377 – 28) and by the Senate on July 13, 1990 (91-6)
  d) Signed into law on July, 26 1990 by Pres. George H.W. Bush (R) 
  e) Amended in 2008 and passed by a healthy margin

  So it seems like everyone was pretty much for the law, regardless of what side of the aisle you sat on. (BTW, don’t ask me to “cite my sources”.  Just Googling the Am. w/ Disabilities Act will bring up the necessary info in the first 4 links)

  The real question is: What does access for disabled people really have to do with buisnesses having to allow people on their property with concealed guns in their car?  I read everything you said, and I can’t find a real tight connection outside of your interpretation of the phrase “places of public accomidation”.  Title III of the ADA only insists that access and accomidation be made avaible to the disabled public whom may wish to enter or do buisiness with a store, hotel, gym, diner, etc.  No where does the law say that private property is no longer private and has been morphed into public property.

• Anonymous

  Let’s think about this:

  Congress allows concealed weapons (by permit) to be allowed in cars at a person’s place of work.  Let’s just assume that all the people also always lock their car doors.

  Supporters of the law say that this allows people to protect themselves and besides, it’s their car and their gun (i.e. their property), so why should anyone else care.  It’s their constitutional right and people who intend to harm others aren’t going going to follow laws anyway.

  All that’s fine and dandy.

  Now, consider this:  Guy gets fired at work and is so pissed off that he goes out into his car, gets his gun that he’s allowed to have, comes back in and starts firing.  Everyone else who has a gun is out of luck because their guns are safely locked in their cars. 

  How about this:  Crazy guy with no relation to a workplace shows up and starts firing off shots during the middle of the work day in the parking lot.  Again, everyone inside the building is out of luck because anyone who carries a gun legally has it safely locked in their car for their protection.

  Both are fairly plausible scenarios and in niether did carrying weapon onto the job as far as the parking lot make a darn bit of difference in anyone’s safety.  I can think of thousands of other scenarios (Ok, maybe hundreds… Fine.  You got me. A dozen). And no one give me any of that ”I’ll just run out to my car and be a hero” junk.  This isn’t a Hollywood movie.  The only time these scenarios work out is if John Doe comes in to work late, happens to see whats going on, and also happens to have a weapon in his vehicle.

  If you carry a weapon because it’s your right and it makes you feel safer, I say that’s great.  It just seems to me that unless you can carry your weapon into the building, you aren’t really as safe as you think you are.  And there’s no way our State/Federal gov’t is going to allow that to happen.  So why even argue about it?

• Anonymous

  Good points.

• Anonymous

  I didn’t want your lack of political knowledge to take over this discussion, but since you continualy point to it heres a quote for you . On signing the measure, George H. W. Bush said:
  I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We’ve all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we’ve been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred…. Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.[19]

• Anonymous

  Thank you, well said. The only reason I push this, is because obviously Frankforter has not had to try to push a wheelchair over and through the many obstacles that exist today. Its a shame he lets his political bent deprive him of a fair understanding of the issues.

• Anonymous

  What does access for disabled people really have to do with buisnesses having to allow people on their property with concealed guns in their car? I read everything you said, and I can’t find a real tight connection outside of your interpretation of the phrase “places of public accomidation”. Title III of the ADA only insists that access and accomidation be made avaible to the disabled public whom may wish to enter or do buisiness with a store, hotel, gym, diner, etc. No where does the law say that private property is no longer private and has been morphed into public property.     

  ****************************************************

  Republican Bob Dole actually was the main advocate for the bill, but the Democrats could have nixed it, if they had thought about the repercussions of the bill.  Then again, most of them being lawyers, they would have known all the possible repercussions before they passed it.

  “Access for disabled people” doesn’t have anything to do with concealed weapons in employee’s cars.  It is the PRECEDENT that was set when this Act became law.  The Act itself specifically said that these businesses that you think are private are NOT private, but are now deemed “places of PUBLIC accomodation”.  The “Act” does not have to state that “private property is no longer private, and has been morphed into public property.”  Simply declaring businesses (ones that have more than just the owner on the premesis) to be “places of public accomodation”, makes them public, andthus bound by government laws, rules and regulations.

• Anonymous

  Thank you, well said. The only reason I push this, is because obviously Frankforter has not had to try to push a wheelchair over and through the many obstacles that exist today. Its a shame he lets his political bent deprive him of a fair understanding of the issues.     

  ***************************************************

  I am sorry to say that you either must be incapable of understanding what I said to you…or, you are kind of dense.  Why are you insisting that I am trying to say that disabled people have ANYTHING to do with this new law concerning concealed weapons in employees cars?  I thought I was fairly direct.  The “AWD Act” set precedent for all other businesses.  A business can no longer be considered “private property” just because the owner “thinks” it is private.  A business will ALWAYS be subject to the laws of the state or federal government, ergo, it is not  “private”.  THINK about it.  THINK about how the STATE was able to order businesses to prohibit smoking on the premesis.  Shouldn’t a PRIVATE business—private property—allow people to smoke while inside the establishment without regard for state and federal law?  YES, they should—it’s their PRIVATE property, isn’t it?  Guess what—it’s not private anymore….and THAT, my dear jerry, is what is so ridiculous on the part of the Democrats AND Repugs (if they fit in there) who used the “private property” angle when voting against the bill.  capice?

• Anonymous

  Franky

  I think I understand a little bit better now what your trying to point to.  I still think it’s a bit of a stretch to tie the two together, but I see the logic.  Thanks for explaining.

• Anonymous

  Franky

  I think I understand a little bit better now what your trying to point to.  I still think it’s a bit of a stretch to tie the two together, but I see the logic.  Thanks for explaining.

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Doug-Graham/689220818 Doug Graham

  Folks, it seems there is still quite a bit of misunderstanding about why a person who wishes to carry would need to lock the gun in a vehicle. It is to have the ccw available on the trip to and from work, not inside the workplace. It is a compromise between the individual right of the employee and the property rights of the employer. The individual’s vehicle is private property also.