The person could be stopped for a number of reasons, only now with this law a person can be fined for failure to inform. Failing to inform would be nearly impossible to prove but courts tend to take the word of the police officer over that of the suspect. Even if a person is able to argue out of having to pay the fine they'd have to be inconvenienced by having to go to court. Even if someone broke no law, informed the officer as required, a zealous officer could still write a citation forcing the person to either pay the fine or appear in court.
Getting back to why a person might be stopped, I have a few ideas:
- Public intoxication (I don't know about Maine but in Iowa we have some seriously messed up public intox laws, anyone can be caught up with this here.)
- Appearing too young to be armed (I've been accused of looking much younger than my age, at least no one asks me for ID to see an R-rated movie any more but I do get carded for buying alcohol)
- Suspected of carrying where not permitted. (Federal gun free school zone law still requires a permit to carry within sight of a school, also restaurants can require disarming before entering if posted)
- Jaywalking
- Littering
- Loitering
- Any of a number of minor violations
I've seen how hoplophobes have been exceedingly creative in "interpreting" seemingly innocent laws on weapons into a means to oppress. I've learned my history and am telling others about it so that perhaps we will not be doomed to repeat it.
I recall seeing a court case recently that said that police can stop a person only on the basis of being armed. I've did some searching but I haven't found it yet.
I'll approach this line by line:
- Public intoxication - If a person is detained for suspicion of public intox, then the officer believes they are breaking the law and the person must inform... Solution: Don't look or be intox in public.
- Appearing too young to be armed - If the officer has a reason to believe you are breaking the law, he may detain you and you must inform if carrying. Solution: Inform as the law requires, nothing else. Burden is on officer to prove you're too young, not on you to prove you're old enough. They can't cite without probable cause.
- Suspected of carrying where not permitted. - The default status is not illegal carry. See the circuit cases I quoted earlier. They must assume you have the permit if they have no reason to believe otherwise. They can't stop you for that and that alone. In a restaurant that serves alcohol and is posted to prohibit firearms, then you're breaking the law by carrying there. Solution: Don't carry in bars where firearms are not allowed.
- Jaywalking - Officer has reasonable suspicion of crime if he sees you jaywalk. You must inform. Solution: Don't jaywalk.
- Littering - Officer has reasonable suspicion of crime if he sees you litter. You must inform. Solution: don't litter
- Loitering - Public or private property? IIRC the supreme court has ruled that laws against loitering on public property are invalidated (Chicago v Morales)
- Any of a number of minor violations - If the officer has reasonable suspicion of the violation and is able to point out specific articulable facts that give him such suspicion, then he can detain you, and you're required to inform.
This isn't rocket science here. Yes, people can be stopped for multiple reasons and if you don't inform, then you will be fined. Why would you be fined? Because you broke the damn law!!! Arguing that it's impossible to prove in court, no different than speeding tickets generally... It's the officers word against yours, yet time and again, they're upheld.
As to your zealous officer comment. Again, no different than an overzealous officer accusing you of speeding, or jaywalking, or littering, or any other number of various civil infractions. With no witnesses, the courts generally side with the officer. What's your recourse? Bring it to the brass, file complaints, etc. No different than the other offenses an "overzealous" officer can commit against the public.
Generally in my experiences, officers aren't making up crimes, and if they do, they're quickly discovered and removed.
You're talking about a small minority of officers acting OUTSIDE the law. This law neither adds to or removes any power from those types of officers. That's an entirely different discussion.