Recent events have demonstrated that you never know where or when evil will strike. Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino and Orlando continue to teach us that we must be vigilant in our surroundings. So when groups like “Moms Demand Action” and “Everytown for Gun Safety” want to deny Maine citizens of their Second Amendment rights, (who are all financed by Michael Bloomberg by the way) you have to wonder why. Why are they trying to restrict our right to fight back?
This is the never-ending mission of anti-gun groups to slowly erode our Second Amendment rights to the point where eventually we will have to crawl to the government for permission to own a gun (much like applying for concealed carry permits today). Their current plan is to restrict our rights through a ballot initiative that bypasses the state Legislature and governor, an initiative that becomes law if a majority of voters cast their ballot in favor of it during the November elections.
This particular initiative expands our current background check system to include all private sales, meaning if you buy a gun from your neighbor you have to find a federally licensed firearms dealer and pay them to run a background check. In fact, this initiative even prohibits you from lending a firearm to a friend or relative to go hunting unless you give it to him in the field or at a certified range. Consider how this will impact you? The people of Maine have bought, sold and handed down firearms to responsible persons for generations. Have there been a few examples of people knowingly supplying firearms to the bad guys? Sure there has, but it is an incredibly small percentage. And when those people engage in that activity they, too, are breaking current law. Remember it’s already against the law to murder, to steal and a myriad of other crimes but bad guys still commit these crimes!
This initiative does nothing to restrict evil people from possessing firearms. From my experience, the majority of criminals still get their guns the old fashion way-from the black market and or by stealing them.
These groups are trying to sensationalize a problem that doesn’t exist. After all Maine’s violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the country. Remember the hysteria last year when the Constitutional carry law was passed by the Legislature – there were many who predicted chaos in the streets as a result. It never happened. But why would anyone expect a man like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to understand problems facing Maine from his Manhattan penthouse? Furthermore, he is a “hypocrite” to lobby (through his surrogates) against Second Amendment rights of the average Mainer while maintaining his own personal armed security force wherever and whenever he travels.
My friends, this is not what our fore-fathers had in mind when they drew up the Second Amendment. They still remembered the day when regular people stood up to government’s forces on Lexington Green and later on that day at Concord Bridge. The day they drove them back to Boston to keep them from confiscating their arms. Stand your ground and vote against this ballot initiative.
Franklin County Sheriff Scott R. Nichols
New Sharon
Well stated Sheriff Nichols! What bothers me most is that a billionaire busybody from New York City has presumed to meddle in Maine affairs.
Why is it that those who support unfettered access to guns always leave out the opening sentence of the 2nd Amendment? It says. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Are you a member of a well regulated militia?
Also, our forefathers did not have assault weapons intended to fire multiple bullets per second, hand guns with the sole purpose of killing people, or the fact that guns outnumber people in America in mind either.
Well put Sheriff! Thank you!
And for Michelle,….. Firstly, I would ask if you know the definition of militia? Secondly, if you continue to read past the militia part you would also have noticed that contained within that “opening sentence” that there is also something about ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”! Thirdly, it is obvious you are un educated when it comes to the subject of firearms all together. It seems what you know, or think you know is what the liberal media has been feeding you and those like you who buy into their agenda.
It might be a good idea to do some research of your own and find some factual information to ARM yourself with before taking a side on an open forum voicing your ignorance.
But wait that would infringe on your first amendment rights. Just think about it, what makes any constitutional right more, or less important and/or acceptable than another? NOTHING is the correct answer, they are all the rights bestowed upon us at birth as citizens of this great country!
But I am sure that the Bulldog will disagree with me on this post and it will never be posted.
What bothers me is Strong Elementary made national news during the Ebola hysteria but a couple legally armed bystanders stop a drug deal/shoot out in Augusta Walmart parking lot and the media sweeps it under the rug. Makes me wonder what other news isn’t considered newsworthy.
Thank you, Sheriff Nichols, for your explanation. I hope people take the time to research the truth beyond what they are being spoon-fed by special interest groups. Your individual right to vote means nothing if your mind is made up for you rather than by you.
Hopefully the power of the people is greater than the power of the sheeple.
I agree Michelle. We’ve gone overboard with guns in this country.
Michelle, militia is defined as “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.” No current emergency thus no current need for a citizens’ militia. If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is infringed today, there may not be an option to form a well regulated militia in the future. Your interpretation of that sentence differs from mine.
And the sole purpose of a hand gun is not to kill people. A hand gun is meant to be used as personal protection. The fact that you even think that means you are drinking the kool-aid.
Nearly 10,000 people die each year in alcohol related car accidents (almost on par with firearms homicides). I’m sure those who repealed prohibition didn’t intend for people to drive drunk and kill people. Should we revert to prohibition to prevent these senseless tragedies? Sure it would essentially punish those who drink responsibly but some people can’t be trusted to make good decisions so let’s just take the choice away from everyone. I mean, DUI laws currently in place (just like current gun laws) don’t seem to solve the ever increasing problem so let’s make more laws.
While I agree there is a problem, I don’t agree with the current proposed solution.
Michelle, Ruth H,
Why is that people who oppose the second amendment have clearly never read any history about why it was written and its intent.
Justice Story was appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811. In 1833 he wrote, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” His comments on the Second Amendment follow.
“The next amendment is: ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ ”
“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid.”
It’s amazing how tirelessly the left and the sheepish followers continue to espouse inaccurate rethoric to push unto those that don’t pose any threat nor the inanimate arms they bear. You can type endless essays on the reason for the bill of rights, however, the 2nd A., still is the most cherry picked and inconvenient truth that is hated by the leftist and the one, and is the only one to protect the rest of the amendments.
If the focus and efforts were directed at the other reasons or the combinations as to why evil, misguided, mentally ill or yes, even common criminals (just to name a few), and not the lawful people and not the “inanimate” firearm (that does not kill people), then, just maybe, we might turn the tide?
Nuff Said…
PS., my family and myself have had firearms (taught and trained early as a child) we have never had a need or idea to shoot anything we did not intend to kill., i.e., wild game or tin cans…and after a lifetime of combined years we have yet to witness any of our inanimate arms get up, load itself, lock and shoot anything?
PPS., I forgot to mention; in simple terms for those that just repeat and rewrite as they are told and need help in thinking for themselves and forgot logic…if a militia were to be formed by the government and the government or an extension of the government were the only ones that was able to have “unfettered” access to firearms, especially those evil looking black ones, then by definition it would not be a militia, nor would it be comprised of the citizenry or the general populace, it is just another “unnamed” branch of the military. Therefore, the argument fails for the leftist that the government is the intended sole body to form a “militia”.
Hutch:
The third paragraph on your comment above, would seem to me, to be an argument to reform the 2nd amendment.
We do have a expensive standing army- in fact the most expensive and well armed one in the world.
Our populace is in no position to overthrow the government if the need was indicated- not only would the amendments available to the general populace be wholly insufficient to the task, the population as a whole isn’t fit enough to climb several flights of stairs without catching their breath, let alone fight an insurrection.
America is obsessed with firearms. THAT is the problem, not the second amendment. What is legal and what people do, can be two different things.
I recently watched a couple of men parading around a supermarket wearing sidearms and shirts emblazoned with large silhouettes of assault rifles. What was that supposed to prove? That if they were attacked in the produce section, they could shoot the place up? Was it to cover up the fact that they were in fact, pudgy, middle aged men with beer bellies and thin gray hair?
Nearly everyday, I listen to people shooting in a gravel pit up the road. I can’t say that I enjoy listening to it. I realize now what others must have felt like when I did the same thing years ago. I find myself wondering, where all the lead goes. It’s ironic, that we hear all about the hazards of lead in the environment yet some of us spend a goodly chunk of money to needlessly pump more lead into it.
We’re obsessed, besotted, with the romance and the thrill of firearms. It’s sad.
I am a responsible gun owner – who has passed plenty of background checks. I never minded them. What I do mind is the knee-jerk reaction that any limits on gun ownership violate the second amendment. Case in point: can someone please tell me why you need an assault rifle for hunting? Or a large magazine?
The Constitution is bigger than the first 2 amendments.
Keep reading and following the leads.
I’ll just save you the trouble.
The Constitution says that no standing army shall be armed on US soil. Ours included. This is how it works,
Regular Army- main branch of the military, can’t be armed.
Army National Guard of the United States- The reserves of the Army. Can’t be armed. And may be called up by presidential decree to fill the role of regular Army.
National Guard of Maine or Maine National Guard- this is Maine’s Militia. Can be armed, made up of civilians, can’t operate outside of Maine.
The people- we are our last line of defense, we can be armed, we can operate outside of Maine, we gun owners do tend to play by the rules, we are a militia. A big one 200 million strong. North Korea can claim it’s million man army, what is a million vs 200 million. Mass shootings happen in gun free zones. You will never see where a guy walked into a gun show and opened fire, they run in and yell Alluha Akba or whatever, they would be dead before they got a shot off. There were 12 million violent crimes last year, 1.7 million homicides. 16 thousand homicides where a gun was used. They made up less than 1% of all homicides. Guns are not, nor will they ever be the problem.
Lin,
To answer your question, rifles are not just used for hunting. Rifles are used for sport shooting, self defense and some people just collect them the same way someone else might collect stamps, baseball cards, cars, etc. Guns are not the problem. The problem is the media and everyone on social media giving relentless publicity to all these tragic terrorist attacks, at home and abroad. That’s exactly what they want! The free publicity is fueling there fire to do harm onto others and recruit more fanatics. Why don’t we cover more of the good that guns do? For example the daily occurrences where law abiding armed citizens use there firearms to stop criminals from committing crimes and harming innocent civilians. Increasing gun control will also benefit criminals and terrorists. More strict gun laws means more unarmed citizens that are easier and softer targets for them to prey upon. Guess what? These extremists don’t get there weapons by standing in line at Cabelas or the local gun shop waiting on a background check to get there firepower.
Thank you Sherriff Nichols for for taking the time to put together and share this educated and well written article.
hrtlss bstrd: First, I need to make a correction to my previous post- paragraph 2, 2nd sentence, amendment was supposed to be armaments.
Now, sorry to burst your bubble, but a standing army can and does legally exist, it just requires that Congress reauthorize it every two years. The point has been raised before and discredited. The USA has been at war 93% of the time it’s existed. So, it stands to reason that the army would be too.
As to your theory that no terrorist would dream of committing an act where guns are available- 2009 Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan. Just for starters.
The next time you’re at a gun show, or in Cabela’s, or Walmart, take a good hard look around and ask yourself, how long those folks would stand up to a trained and battle hardened army? Most of them haven’t known what it’s like to miss a meal, let alone endure the hardships of being a commando.
A Vietcong could carry his own weight all day, survive on a handful of rice and a cup of water once a day and fight to the death. Most Americans today can’t lift anything heavier than a doughnut.
Half the gun owners in this country don’t even know how to clean a weapon. Sure, maybe most Mainers do- but how about the boys in the hood?
Which brings up another problem with your scenario- not all of the gun owners are gung ho, law abiding patriots who are drilling with a local militia to be prepared for the foreign hordes coming over the hill; they’re gun owners because they can rob and steal and intimidate with them.
If you want something to worry about, ask yourself this- why does Russia want Trump to be the next President?
I don’t care what the law is. If I want to buy a gun, I will. I just won’t register it. Why should I? I’m not a criminal. I would only use it for target practice in case a bear shows up and tries invading my home. And if no one is supposed to have a gun, the only ones who will have them are killers and robbers. Sorry. I think I’ll go buy a rifle. And it would be through a store, either.
Meant to say it would NOT be through a store
JL:
What part of your anatomy did you pull this gem out of?
” especially those evil looking black ones”
That line pretty much tells me what your underlying issues are.
Per snowman, “not all of the gun owners are gung ho, law abiding patriots who are drilling with a local militia to be prepared for the foreign hordes coming over the hill; they’re gun owners because they can rob and steal and intimidate with them.”
Do you think these people you are referring to will be affected by new gun laws?
Fairly certain, though I don’t know, that JL’s reference to “Evil looking black ones” was a reference to AR-15s or other so-called “assault style” weapons (this phrase has popped up a lot lately when people discuss what they believe are the relative dangers of different types of weapons). But he/she can defend him/herself if need be.
As far as semi-automatic weapons with larger magazines …. besides hobbyists, I can think of 2 reasons one might wish to own one: First, if someone is invading your home, you want to be able to get off more than one shot, mostly likely; and Second, if the people need to arise and defend their country if, for example, fascists take over… nuff said.
Most of the rest of the arguments are specious. Note that just this week most of the mass killings were via machete, knife, or bomb (what kind of world are we in when that sentence makes sense? yeesh).
If you are a radical pacifist I salute you, you are a greater soul than I, and my prayers join with yours for protection when something evil comes your way. The question whether self-defense or fighting for freedom is at variance with faith is an old one, and not by any means a settled one. But that has nothing to do with what, if any, type of arms one may own. The founding fathers wanted the people armed in case of attack or usurpation of power; I’m sure they wanted the people to have the best arms available (what’s the point otherwise?). Whether you choose to own or not is up to you: Just remember that evildoers respect no laws and in this broken world the threat exists, has always existed, and always will exist, until the end.
Typical, typical & typical…don’t offer a rebuttal, opposition…no, insult, personal attacks, and if all fails let’s bring in the race, gender or the protected class cards to the table even if it’s a non issue or even part of the conversation.
Now, I know I am in the habit of being “colorful” in my rants here as in other written media…I do so for my own amusement, sanity, keep it interesting…and I recall back in school that some of my best teachers were the ones that were “colorfull” versus the stale monotone ones. However, as you read here, we must have psychologist on board or they must have anger issues?
Again…(I hate doing this, I prefer self thinkers) but as quoted by some of our most knowledgeable leaders of our time; “Following the Sandy Hook tragedy, New York passed the SAFE Act, which was essentially a reboot of the so-called “assault” weapons ban, but with a few cosmetic tweaks, such as replacing the pistol grip with a thumb stock, the EBR (Evil Black Rifle), also known as the AR-15 (“AR” being the abbreviation for ArmaLite Rifle, not “assault” rifle) and its variants are now fully SAFE Act compliant.” I know, I know…hate doing this, it’s called…sarcasm. That is for the “non-color blind and the low info people.
In the spirit of compromise, knowing many anti-gun fanatics will demand we do “something” (whether or not that “something” actually reduces gun-related violence), I propose the following: pass a law requiring firearms manufacturers to produce all “assault” weapons in only baby blue or pink, cover them with images of Barbie or Disney princesses, but don’t change anything about the functionality.” Again, I offer this as a benefit…sarcasm.
Lastly, on a serious note; I do thank Sheriff Nichols for this well written and honest letter and his service as I do in person with all law enforcement officers when I see them in the field on break or on duty. And it’s a real shame that with the reality of the most current events that while watching both parties’ conventions the media keeps the rhetoric of the RNC doom and gloom and not noting the positive, and on the DNC, how they are just peachy, no mention or invite of law enforcement and continued opposition to everything the RNC offers. Some people will just keep their heads in the sand and or pretend that life is just like Disneyland.
Nuff Said…
Sherriff Nichols, This is a simple question, that I would like you to answer. Do you believe that the public should be able to purchase same weapons as law enforcement agencies? Please, explain your answer.
All we need to do is consider the recent tragedies in Europe and Japan. They all have very strict gun laws. Bad guys still were able to kill over a hundred people with an ax, a knife and a truck. Arguably the death toll may have been higher if these people had easier access to firearms but it is equally possible that an armed civilian may have limited the violence. The mass shooting in California occurred in a state with very strict gun laws.
The risk of being shot in Maine by a bad guy has not manifested itself while the increase in violent home invasions is well documented. LEOs do a good job but they can’t be everywhere. Therefore although a “black rifle” maybe scary to some I feel more comfortable having one to defend my family.
But knowing it scares people I would not walk around Farmington with it slung over my shoulder. A little common sense goes a long way- don’t let a person’s fear restrict my rights but don’t exercise my rights in an offensive way knowing that guns scare some people.
Sort of like that topless female UMF student. Apparently she had the right to bare more than her arms but just because she had the right doesn’t mean that she should have exercised it in a way that was offensive.
I regularly receive ads from Cabela’s that try and entice me into buying more guns. I also go in stores, Including Cabela’s and walk past the firearms sections. I don’t see all that many “big Black guns”. I see camouflage, I see blued, I see stainless steel, I see lots of walnut, or fake walnut. I see pearl handles. i see pink handguns!
I don’t get scared when I see people walking around with guns- I’m not afraid to die, it’s going to happen eventually anyway. I feel sad for those people, that they feel so much fear that they have become besotted, bewitched by the feeling of power as they fondle those expensive tools of war and fantasize about acts of power and control they might do with them. If you can slap down the money, you can ameliorate your feelings of inadequacy and be powerful and strong.
The only way an uprising can be successful now is if a country’s military is behind it or refuses to intervene. There is no way that our populace is going to use personal arms to overthrow the government or prevent it from being taken over. Look at the pictures of Turkey’s recent coup attempt.
The NRA promotes a romantic fantasy that the Revolution was won by civilian militias.
It was won because we got the French to be our allies. They helped us because they were already enemies with the British.
The whole thing may have begun with skirmishes fought by rag tag militias but that isn’t how it was won.
Why should a topless woman be any more or less offensive than a man being topless?
It makes as much sense as putting bras on cows. There have been many societies that got along just fine with women being topless at least until white missionaries showed up and made everyone miserable.
Cmon Scott, please answer the question
Some people have honestly lost their minds, YOU can not stop a crime before it happens with laws…period.
The only thing standing between a gangland civilization or a totalitarian government system is GOOD PEOPLE WITH GUNS. The only protection for the rest of the bill of rights is the 2nd amendment.
Thank you Sheriff for a common sense well written op-ed, And thanks again to the Daily Bulldog for providing a place to have this dialogue.
WOW, You really outdid yourself here. Hard to find a place to begin with all the material you just pulled out of…..somewhere. Lead?!?!? Really? Your concerned about lead from shooting? Your really gonna freak out when you have a wheel balanced on your car and they tell you that you lost a 1.25oz piece of lead on the road somewhere…lol..Lead?!?!
Your lumping of different people who own guns into one character is bizarre, and honestly sounds like you have some pent up stuff of your own to deal with.
3% OF Americans actively fought the British empire- 3%…You can say they couldn’t have won without the help of the french but even if it was a lost cause that 3% would have still fought, Because sometimes an ideal is worth fighting for even if you know you will lose.
Military bases are for the most part gun free- FYI. But I think you knew that and I think you also knew exactly what the black rifle reference was all about, And from a non-trump guy- even I found the Trump/Russia thing weird.
Remember the police being shot in Dallas? There were many people in the streets carrying their own weapons, as allowed under Texas law.
That was a nightmare scenario for the law enforcement agencies…how could ‘the cops’ tell if those people were “good guys with guns”?
And we already have the answer to, “Why did he shoot me? I had my hands up.” http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-miami-idUSKCN1010D7
Pure, some of your responses are spot on but do you home work. tanks
Starting January 1, 2011 – A person may not sell, distribute or use wheel weights or other products for balancing motor vehicle tires that contain intentionally added lead or mercury. This ban also applies to mail order or internet sales into Maine.
Starting January 1, 2012 – A person may not sell a new motor vehicle required to be registered in Maine that is equipped with a wheel weight or other balancing material containing intentionally added lead or mercury.
Pure: Military bases are mostly gun free.
Really? If that’s true, then it supports the idea of not having everyone running around armed all the time, doesn’t it?
Lead: We have struggled for the past 50 years to remove lead from gasoline, from paint, from buildings, from our water supply, from the environment of migratory birds. Yet, some people spend plenty of money pumping lead into the ground. A bulk box of 223 caliber ammo- 300 rounds costs $140.00. That’s probably the number of shots I listen to each day. That’s bulk price and for a very common round. It can way way up from there.
I don’t know how many shooters are involved, but not many. It sounds like just two or three and the most. I just can’t imagine why someone would throw away that much money, to put holes in a target.
Lots of countries have lower crime rates than we do and manage it without most law enforcement carrying weapons, let alone the populace. So no, law and order is not kept by having everyone armed.
3% of what population? The free white male property owners? How about indentured servants, slaves, women and Indians?
Somehow, I think the NRA gave you that statistic.
People came and went from the army. Men would return home to plant crops, or bring in the harvest etc.
The big thing to remember is: it was all a LONG, LONG time ago. A very different time.
Yes, it was the beginning of the basis for our government. But it was the basis. A lot has changed since then.
You never know how the tide will turn. If people register guns, and then the new government officials decide that citizens shouldn’t have the right to own one, there is a problem. The problem is this: your name and address will be on record. If the new government decides a citizen should not possess a gun, then they know where you are so they can seize it. So, I don’t recommend registering a gun, although I know that is not the politically correct thing to say. But I know what is right. “The people” in the second amendment does not refer to the militia. It refers to the populace. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they just state “the militia”? I am bothered by people fooling around with the constitution and our bill of rights. There was a reason why they created them. They were sick of English rule.
My father fought in World War 2 and so did his 3 brothers. My uncle lost a leg. They all had guns but never hurt anyone. My husband was in Vietnam for 18 months and a total of 4 years in the Marines. He never killed anyone either.
I think if someone is attacking your home, you might wish you had a neighbor with a gun to at least scare the creep away. Otherwise, what are you going to do? Cry? Hide in a corner? Even a dog isn’t always effective against an intruder. And if you live miles from the police or sheriff’s dept., it will take time to get there to help you. So, I guess you can throw some potatoes at the intruders?