Letter to the Editor: No on Question 3

5 mins read

I recently attended a candidate’s meeting where we looked over some polling data. The pollster recommended that the candidates “be careful of Question 3” because it wasn’t polling well. Question 3 would enact mandatory universal background checks on gun sales and exchanges in Maine. I replied that I had no intention of “being careful” about my second amendment rights. As a lifelong sportsman and gun owner I didn’t want my rights eroded by someone who concocted solutions to a nonexistent problem here in Maine from a New York penthouse.

I have viewed the proposed law and have tried to figure out how many times I would have been arrested in the last year had it been in force. For years because I live less than a mile from the high school in a good hunting area I have had a few students who were children of friends come by after school to hunt. Often they didn’t leave their rifles here at the house so I would loan them one. I only loaned rifles or allowed hunting to those kids I knew to be safe and who had demonstrated safety and common sense (I also had their parents’ permission to take them hunting).

Under the new law this borrowing would require I find a person to run a background check to loan it and another to have it returned. Not sure if that would have to happen each day when they left the gun at the house or only once a season, though I suspect if the gun was in my house after it had been transferred then I would be guilty. For years I have done the same with college students I have known.

Having served in the military I know well what it is like to be in a new area and want to hunt. With the experience in mind I have had a student or two a year whom I have shared hunting with and because they usually don’t have a rifle at school I have loaned them one after I was confident they were safe. Under the proposed law I would be guilty if every time I did this without transferring the gun through a background check.

This summer I was shooting with some locals and we were each sharing our guns. You know how it goes at the range. “Hey try this pistol,” or “wow, this rifle is accurate give it a try.” Under the proposed law would each exchange be allowed? How often during hunting season do hunters on a lunch break target shoot a few rounds a try another hunter’s rifle out? If the new law is followed to the letter this could be deemed an infraction. And if you don’t think it is complex take a look at the laws it cites.

Then there is law enforcement: are we going to ask the police or game wardens to take the serial number of every gun they see and make sure it is in the proper hands? Anyone who has gone through a background check while buying a gun, and I have been through a few, knows it takes around an hour or more. What warden or hunter has that kind of time? It is complex and essentially unenforceable.

And where is the evidence that people are loaning guns to friends that have gone on any shooting sprees? I have asked local law enforcement and they are unaware of a single incident when this has occurred. The reality is we know our friends much better than any bureaucracy in Washington or elsewhere. I have not loaned guns to people before if I thought they were prepared or acted the fool. No background check would know what I knew.

Question 3 is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. It is Michael Bloomberg seeking to influence the 2nd amendment policies of yet another state; he has tried in quite a few. I urge the voters to see through this New York solution to a problem that doesn’t exist to say no on Question 3.

Lance Harvell
Farmington

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

38 Comments

  1. Thank You Lance. Question 3 is nothing more than a foot in the door for liberals to start infringing more gun control further down the road . Just as they have tried doing with our hunting . They should keep there noses in there own state and out of Maine.

  2. Just to let everyone know, Scott Landry is also against question 3. He is running against Lance for district 113.

  3. Thanks Lance for making it clear to people what this whole bill is about. It’s not just about a background check. I believe the last one they tried was Question 1 about OUR bears not this time either, can’t we make them just go away, leave things the way they are.

  4. I am a moderate Democrat running for the Maine House in District 112 which includes Phillips, Avon, Kingfield, Carrabassett Valley, Weld, Carthage, Anson, New Portland, Starks and various unorganized townships in the area.

    I grew up in Farmington in a family that hunts and have been a gun owner for 40 years. I have fond memories of ‘deer camp’ and shooting at cans in the woods with my dad. Like most native rural Mainers, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or Green, I do not support Question 3. I will be voting ‘No’ on it in November. If elected, I will vote against any legislation proposed that is similar to it.

    Republicans running for office in rural Maine want you to believe, a vote for the Democrat is a vote against against the Second Amendment. The truth is, in state and local elections in the rural hunting districts of western, central and northern Maine, more often than not, the positions of the Republican and Democratic candidates on hunting and sporting issues are the same, especially if both candidates grew up here.

    Like the bear referendum before it, this referendum was inflicted on us by out of state meddlers intent on misusing our referendum process to promote a cause. Maine people do not appreciate rich New Yorker’s who think they know better than we do what’s best for us sticking their noses in our political business. In our rural sporting districts, this is not a partisan political issue. Please join us in November in voting ‘No’ on Question 3. Send Mr. Bloomberg and his meddling referendum back to NY where it belongs.

  5. I have known Lance for over 20 years and have shared many hunting experiences with him. He is a staunch supporter of 2nd amendment rights and has never wavered from this over the duration of our friendship. Lance is a man of his word and if he commits to something he always follows through.
    I am proud to have him as a friend and mentor.
    Question 3 is absolutely funded by Bloomberg through a significant grant and while we all want to live in a safer world I can guarantee that Q 3 will not do anything to make the state safer. We need to enforce the laws on the books and not create additional ineffective legislation.

  6. Thanks to Barbara Chassie for her forthright defense of Second Amendment rights and contemptuous dismissal of unelecterd legislators eager to improve Maine and Mainers from remote Manhattan town-houses.

    “Thinking” has a point about Scott speaking for himself—hopefully with the same firmness as Ms Chassie. I know him to be a decent man, but he needs to explain why the NRA gives him an “anti-gun” rating.

    Everyone who knows Lance Harvell knows him to be an avid and “efficient” hunter who values and exercises his Second Amendment rights. All I know about Scott that even remotely relates to this question is that he likes pigeons and races them. This is not much use.

  7. You have my vote Lance as well as the people I talk to in New Sharon and Farmington. I don’t know about the liberal college group, instructors, students etc. I would think that college students should vote in their home towns. I heard some registered here and voted in the RSU referendum this year. Not right. Should be not allowed. Barbara, you’ll serve your area just fine, whether dem. or repub. If I lived up there you’d get my vote. Good luck to both candidates.

  8. Thanks Buckshot, if you are who I think you are, some of those fond memories of ‘deer camp’ include you. It feels kind of sad to drive by the old spot and see it gone. Hope that all is well and you get your deer.

  9. I am running for Senate (17) and I also am not supporting question 3 and will vote against it in Nov. I do not have any experience with guns or hunting but have many friends who do. While I do believe in background checks for gun sales, this legislation is completely wrong in the gun lending piece. I can not imagine anyone lending a rifle to either a complete stranger or someone they knew to be unstable. What we need to prevent the tragedies of mass shooting is better mental health care and enforcement of the existing laws.

  10. John, thanks for your comment and hope to see you at the fair.

    I suspect I have a negative rating from the NRA as well. The reason is, I did not fill out and return a ‘Candidate Questionnaire’ from them. Candidates receive a couple of these questionnaires a week from every special interest group imaginable. I made a decision early in my campaign not to fill out or return any of them. The button I wear on my lapel says, ‘Serve the People.’ It does not say ‘Serve the Special Interests.’ The first and foremost duty of a legislator is to serve the will and best interests of the constituents of her district. There are times when fulfilling this duty requires a legislator to ‘break ranks’ with the platform of her party and even her own ideology (if she has one which I try not to…). I decided I did not want to be endorsed, and then end up beholden, to any special interests. So, not just the NRA questionnaire but all of the questionnaires I received were filed in the circular file.

    Scott has been a friend of mine since the 70’s. I do not know where he stands on this issue. He needs to speak for himself on it. Meanwhile, keep in mind that all it takes to end up with a negative rating from a special interest is failing or refusing to return a candidate questionnaire.

  11. I have one foot in the door of the Republicans and one foot in the Democrats. I mostly am a “liberal” and by that, I mean, I don’t think the disadvantaged are being treated very well. Blamed for the economy for an example. But although I don’t hunt, I did own a .22 rifle for a little bit and had fun target practicing. If the authorities tell us we can’t own a gun, then I will go buy one illegally. Mainers don’t usually go around shooting people. They end up killing themselves with drugs, instead. So, I think the 2nd. Amendment should not be tampered with.

  12. Dear “thinking” , I was a student @ UMF from 1966-1970. I was hunting then and still do. I am a lifetime member of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and hold lifetime hunting and fishing licenses . I will vote NO on question 3 because it will do nothing to prevent the senseless crimes that occur with guns , knives , vehicles or box cutters. Hunting and gun ownership are a tradition here in Maine that I will support forever.

  13. Mr. Harvell is in error as to the specifics of the proposed law.
    I urge him and all others to read it in it’s entirety.
    It makes allowances for the situations he describes and envisions.

    The has been far too much hubris in politics. lets all be honest. It’s fine to disagree. But it’s not okay to spread disinformation.

    Go ahead Bulldog, delete this too.

  14. When all is said and done I believe Lance is rightly standing up for our 2nd amendment .That is enough to get my vote.If anyone feels that we need people from away with money to try and control our way of living I feel they should consider moving and not trying to change things that do not need changing.

  15. Here is the laws explanation. None of the situations I mentioned are exempted. The exemptions are for family members and emergencies.

    The Maine Background Checks for Gun Sales Measure, also known as Question 3, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Maine as an indirect initiated state statute.
    A “yes” vote supports requiring background checks before a gun sale or transfer between people who are not licensed firearm dealers.
    A “no” vote opposes this proposal to require background checks for gun sales.
    If approved, Question 3 would also require that in cases when neither party is licensed, they must meet at a licensed dealer, who would then complete a background check on the transferee. Background check exceptions would include emergency self-defense, while the parties are hunting or sport shooting, and transfers between family members. Currently, Maine does not have a state law regarding background checks for gun sales and follows federal laws that require background checks for all gun sales by licensed dealers.[1

  16. Who’s going to pay for the background check? Just wondering. And what happens if a gun owner goes through the background check and someone steals the gun? The gun will be traced back to the owner who had nothing to do with a crime. I think it sounds potentially harmful to the owner. And that is especially true if the thief knows the owner. The authorities might think that they were in on the crime together.

  17. Lance Harvell _ and everyone else

    Here’s the law Lance. it took me 12 seconds to find it download and copy. I included the two sections pertinent to your discourse. Make sure you read section 8.
    The full text is right here: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/citizens/background.pdf
    I know you have a little bit of experience reading Maine laws, or at least you are supposed to have.
    Please read it- ALL OF YOU.
    It’s one thing to oppose it. It’s okay to have a difference of opinion. But don’t spread false information.
    I am just so tired, of all the hubris, from all sides. Please, let’s be honest.
    You want to get elected. fine. Do it honestly.

    Sec. 1. 25 MRSA §2014 is enacted to read:
    §2014. Background checks for firearms sales and transfers

    2. Background checks required for all sales and transfers. Except as provided in
    subsection 8, each sale or transfer of a firearm occurring in whole or in part in this State
    between unlicensed persons must be preceded by a background check on the transferee,
    and an unlicensed person may not sell or transfer a firearm and an unlicensed person may
    not receive a firearm without complying with the process described in this section.

    8. Exceptions. The provisions of this section apply to the transfer or sale of a
    firearm between unlicensed persons except if:
    A. The sale or transfer is between family members;
    B. The firearm is a curio or relic, as defined in 27 Code of Federal Regulations,
    Section 478.11 (2015), and the sale or transfer is between collectors of firearms as
    curios or relics, as defined by 18 United States Code, Section 921(a)(13) (2015), who
    both have in their possession a valid collector of curios and relics license issued by
    the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
    C. The sale or transfer is of an antique firearm, as defined in 18 United States Code,
    Section 921(a)(16) (2015);
    D. The transfer is temporary and is necessary to prevent imminent death or great
    bodily harm, and:
    (1) The transfer lasts only as long as necessary to prevent such threat; and
    Page 3
    (2) The transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is disqualified to
    possess firearms under state or federal law and has no reason to believe that the
    transferee intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime;
    E. Either the transferor or the transferee is a law enforcement agency or the
    Department of Corrections or is, to the extent the person is acting within the course of
    the person’s employment or official duties, a peace officer, a law enforcement officer,
    a corrections officer, a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the
    National Guard or the Reserves of the United States Armed Forces, a federal law
    enforcement officer or a person licensed as a security guard or employed by a
    contract security company or proprietary security organization under Title 32, chapter
    93;
    F. The transfer is temporary, the transferor has no reason to believe that the
    transferee intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime and the transfer and
    the transferee’s possession of the firearm take place exclusively:
    (1) At an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the
    jurisdiction in which such range is located or, if no such authorization is required,
    operated consistently with local law in such jurisdiction;
    (2) At a lawfully organized competition involving the use of a firearm or for
    participation in or practice for a performance by an organized group that uses
    firearms as a part of the performance;
    (3) While the transferee is hunting or trapping if such activity is legal in all
    places where the transferee possesses the firearm and the transferee holds any
    license or permit required for such activity; or
    (4) In the actual presence of the transferor.
    Any transfer allowed by this paragraph is permitted only if the transferor has no
    reason to believe that the transferee is disqualified to possess firearms under state or
    federal law or, if the transferee is under 18 years of age and is receiving the firearm
    under direct supervision and control of an adult, that such adult is disqualified to
    possess firearms under state or federal law; or
    G. The transfer occurs by operation of law upon the death of a person for whom the
    transferee is an executor, administrator, trustee or personal representative of an estate
    or a trust created in a will.

  18. You’re welcome Barbara, but you make a slight error.in evaluating Scott’s NRA ranking. Refusal or failure to fill out their Question list results in a “?,” not a letter grade.

    Thanks for the clarification, Scott.

    And thanks to Joanne also. Unless Senator Saviello makes an equally clear stand you have my vote. Don’t infer that I’m abandoning my conviction that Democrats are Satan’s spawn, but I have a high regard for clarity and conviction.

  19. Snowman the ranges would have to official not a gravel pit or home range, the hunting situation would have to happen in the field, not before. And as I mocked, unclear as welI too complicated to follow and enforce and would make criminals of law abiding gun owners I understand the issue fully.

  20. Snowman,

    The proposed law, as with all laws, is subject to interpretation; hence the need for courts of law.

    Lance has presented scenarios not specifically covered by the proposed law, as you suggest. For instance, if a student were to leave a gun at Lance’s residence to be used for hunting after school, a violation would occur. If a student borrowed a gun from Lance and then went hunting, a violation would occur. The proposed law states that the transfer must occur WHILE hunting.

    In the past you commented that you’ve listened to your neighbors shooting guns. Do you live next to “an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located or, if no such authorization is required, operated consistently with local law in such jurisdiction”? If not, and your neighbor lets anyone other than a family member (as defined by the proposed law) touch their gun, a violation would occur. To me, and many others, the gun range is often a local gravel pit with the owner’s permission being the only authorization needed.

    Laws only affect the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, are not law-abiding.

  21. John; Glad you like conviction( I have a lot of that) and clarity(on my good days!). I do hope I only resemble Satan;s spawn on my very worst days!

  22. While there certainly might be some different interpretations of any law, the given examples (from both Amanda and Lance) still don’t seem to be infringements. It certainly doesn’t state where you have to keep your own gun, so a student or anyone else could choose to leave a gun somewhere (hopefully secure) like at a friends house, to be used by that same owner at another time. And section F 4 shows that the transfer needn’t be done “while hunting” as long as the transferor is present; seems like a reasonable idea that you should be there to loan someone your gun, otherwise how can you be sure that someone who shouldn’t handle it (like a young child) might get it?
    In rural areas, the local gravel pit usually is “consistent with local law”, and having narrowly missed being shot by an ignorant neighbor target shooting toward my house, I welcome some control over a person borrowing a gun to go shooting in a place they may not be familiar with.
    While the language might seem a bit unclear (as many pieces of legislation are), common sense would indicate that it seems unlikely that the dire consequences attributed to the legislation are accurate. The idea that any proposal to enact reasonable gun control is a hidden attack on the Second Amendment is a fantasy; the data proves that many gun owners support some controls.

  23. Hey Lance!
    follow along here. Read the second part of this sentence beginning with “or”
    (1) At an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the
    jurisdiction in which such range is located or, if no such authorization is required,
    operated consistently with local law in such jurisdiction;

    In other words, if it’s a gravel pit, that’s okay, unless shooting in gravel pits in that area isn’t okay anyway. Simple enough?

    This proposed law is about transferring OWNERSHIP of a firearm. Not the storage of them. If a person brings a gun to you for safe keeping, they are not giving the gun to you for you to use. If it’s locked in a gun safe until they come to retrieve it, or you bring it to them, that is not transferring ownership.
    If a hunter stays at a hunting camp where all the firearms are kept together in a safe place, they are not transferring ownership. The gun owner isn’t giving it to someone else to use.

    It also just might be true that some of our gun habits should be changed just out of common sense pragmatism.
    I used to listen to the older generation talk about hunting on their way to school and leaving their guns in their school locker during the day. People left loaded rifles in unlocked cars with the keys in the ignition.
    Those days are long gone. They began to end with the shooting of JFK and a lot of instances since. Like it or not, Maine is a part of the USA. We are but one of 50 states.

    ANother thing to consider:
    Perhaps just casually leaving your gun someplace isn’t the thing to do. It’s YOUR GUN. YOU and only you, are responsible for it. It’s true, guns don’t kill, people do. If you leave a gun someplace where it’s out of your control and it’s used in a crime- that’s on you.
    If you leave your gun with Lance, and it gets stolen and used in a crime? That’s on YOU. Not the person who stole it, not Lance, YOU. It was your responsibility.
    Guns are made to kill. That’s what they are for. Putting holes in a piece of paper is incidental. If that was the sole purpose of a firearm, the whole activity could be accomplished way easier. Thus gun ownership and use is serious stuff. More serious than owning most objects. What if I gave you a stick of dynamite and said, hey, hold on to this overnight, so I don’t need to drive around with it. Is that serious? What’s the difference between that and a loaded assault rifle?

  24. John, thanks for the clarification on how the ratings questionnaires work. Some of the cover letters infer the punishment of a negative rating if the form is not returned. Interesting to discover that is not how the process actually works.

    It seems like peoples’ positions of this issue, the Question 3 issue, are more cultural than political. I lived in NY for 10 years before moving home to ME for good. Guns, to people from NY, are the scarey things muggers stick in their faces in the subway. There is a visceral reaction of fear at the sight of them. They come from an urban culture where law-abiding citizens have few, if any, positive experiences involving guns. Once we understand this about them, we begin to know how to talk with them about the issue. None of the rational policy arguments make a difference to them. Thumping our chests, calling them ‘liberal gun grabbers,’ and threatening them with ‘Second Amendment solutions’ makes them even more fearful. The more contact they have over time with calm, rational non-threatening responsible Maine gun owners in their own communities, the more they understand the difference and start to come around.

    Thank you Lance, for bringing this issue to us and stimulating so much positive discussion about it.

  25. The Sun Journal has an article regarding Question 3 from the point of view of well-respected Oxford County Sheriff Wayne Gallant: “Question 3 goes beyond background checks for the sale of firearms,” Gallant wrote, and that “in any occurrence in which a person furnishes, gives, lends or otherwise provides a firearm,” both parties involved with the transfer become subject to mandatory background checks.

    “If we want a law that addresses criminals and others that should not be in possession of firearms, let’s craft a bill that addresses those issues, and not create a hardship at the expense of all the good citizens in our state who are law-abiding hunters, sportsmen, protectors of property, and responsible gun owners,” Gallant wrote. “I cannot support Question 3.”

  26. Nancy TJ:

    Please go read the law and read what I commented above. You’ll see the link to the law in my post. Or google it yourself. Takes seconds.

    What you just have done, is what too many people in this country are doing; listening to what someone who is supposed to have some knowledge and or authority talk about a topic and then assuming they know what they are talking about and telling the truth.

    What is so sad and scary, isn’t this law. It’s that a person like this sheriff, or Lance Harvell, are people who must be able to read understand and think critically about laws in order to do the jobs they were elected to do.

    We really have become a nation of idiots. More people than ever can read, but fewer and fewer can understand what they read.

    The root of the problem is, we don’t read. We listen to sound bites and assume they’re true and repeat them. We scan a headline and assume it actually conveys the content of the article and that the article is true.

    We are unable to discern the difference between proof and suspicion, alleged vs. convicted, known facts from hypotheses.

  27. Check YOUR facts snowman.

    Under the Definitions of this proposed law:

    J. “Transfer” has the same meaning as in Title 17-A, section 554-A, subsection 1, paragraph A.

    Let’s look that up, shall we…

    A. “Transfer” means to sell, furnish, give, lend, deliver or otherwise provide, with or without consideration.

  28. Read it again…

    “having narrowly missed being shot by an ignorant neighbor target shooting toward my house, I welcome some control over a person borrowing a gun to go shooting in a place they may not be familiar with”

    Your example is a violation of an existing law. What makes you think another law will make you any more safe?

  29. If it’s that easy to say “it’s not mine, I was holding it for a friend” I think our jails would be less crowded.

  30. Amanda

    Giving the definition of “transfer” does not change the clear intent of section 8. F (4) which states:

    “8. Exceptions. The provisions of this section apply to the transfer or sale of a
    firearm between unlicensed persons except if:
    F. The transfer is temporary, the transferor has no reason to believe that the
    transferee intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime and the transfer and
    the transferee’s possession of the firearm take place exclusively:
    …or
    (4) In the actual presence of the transferor.

    The examples given of swapping guns at a shooting range or lending guns to someone to go hunting are clearly exempted as long as those things happen in the presence of the transferor. This makes sense, since the only way it could happen outside of that person’s presence is if a gun was left somewhere unsecured, which surely is not responsible gun ownership.

    It is an ineffective argument to say that just because existing laws are broken we should not add new laws. People still break speed limits in their cars, but the relatively new seat belt law has saved thousands of lives.
    Once again, some common sense helps rather than repeating the same old dogma.

  31. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I am an avid gun owner and believe that the sale of all firearms should require a background check. I have completed 10 such background checks in the past couple of years and it has never taken more than 5 minutes on any transfer to obtain approval. It is a minor inconvenience to make sure that people who should not have guns not be able to buy them. I have also submitted several form 1 and form 4 applications with the ATF and although I am annoyed by the length of that process (6 months and counting on 3 applications), I understand that certain firearms need to stay out of the hands of criminals.

    I respect the opinion of the 2nd amendment purists but think there needs to be some minimal gun control. Even the most hardcore gun enthusiast would not sell a gun to a 5 year old I hope.

    As far as the cost of background checks I have found most FFL dealers will process the transfer for $20 to $30 dollars. I purchase lower receivers and other firearms over the internet and agree that the transfer needs to occur with a FFL. I am not an FFL so not looking to line my pockets but it really would not be hard to have a FFL run a background check for a fee before handing the gun over at a gun show. As far as a private sale, include the FFL fee as either a seller or buyer cost and do the sale at a gun store.

    With that said, I absolutely agree that the proposed law overreaches. If I wish to loan a gun to a friend then I am not sure that I am comfortable that I could legally do it under tis law like I can now. There are times I may lend a firearm to a friend when I am not there. That does not make it “unsecured”. My wife may unlock the safe and give it to a friend while I am at work. I am the person who passed the background check not my wife so I don’t think she qualifies as transferor. Or my son may give me call while at work and ask if his friend, with parent’s permission, can use one of my rifles. Again as transferor I am not there.

    The law is either poorly written or deceptively explained as to what the true affect it will have on gun owners.

    I support reasonable background checks but oppose Question 3.

    Thanks Lance and Scott for raising concerns and educating folks about the pitfalls built into the law.

  32. Snowman, please explain how this law prevents a criminal from committing a crime with a gun. Do you think that law breakers will read paragraph e subsection f before they obtain their gun illegally?

    You seem so unhappy with this area I would think a place with stricter gun laws would be more suitable for you…oh but wait, that’s right, the places with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of gun violence so that’s probably not a good idea. Chicago comes to mind…they have some of the toughest gun laws in this nation yet multiple people are getting shot every day. Why aren’t all the laws working there?

  33. I am not the most popular responder on DailyBulldog, but I think if every gun owner has to go through a background check, and the government decides no one can have one (which will probably eventually happen), then they know your address and will seize your gun (s). Then, just the criminals and cops will have a gun. What are you going to do? Hit the intruder with a frying pan? Maybe throw a potato at them?

  34. I think it is extremely impressive that Michel Bloomberg of New York is willing to spend the time and work to revise the Constitution of the United States and work to control the lives of citizens in the State of Maine.
    Vote NO on number 3 !

    G. Ernest Lynch

  35. How about the truth?

    The definition was in response to snowman’s assertion that the law pertains to ownership only. And the question for Read it again wasn’t an argument, it was just a question.

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the exceptions. They are feel good provisions and don’t cover all would-be legal scenarios. Question 3 will do little to prevent illegal transfers. There will always be a black market and additional gun laws will make it more prolific.

    I believe more needs to be done to prevent senseless tragedies like Sandy Hook but I don’t believe the proposed legislation is the answer. Thinking the passage of question 3 will make our State or nation a safer place is as big a fantasy as thinking additional gun control attacks the Second Amendment.

    Omar Mateen was investigated by the FBI for possible terrorism before passing a background check to purchase the rifle and pistol he used in the Orlando nightclub shooting. Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Gifford and 19 others with a gun he legally purchased from a gun dealer after he passed a federal background check. Nancy Lanza legally owned the firearms her son used to kill her at their home and students and faculty at Sandy Hook. James Holmes used three guns legally purchased from three different gun dealers in the Aurora movie theater shooting. Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people using two handguns he legally purchased after being declared mentally ill. Chris Kyle was shot at a gun range with his own gun by a man he brought there. It’s not the guns’ fault they were involved in these tragedies. The same gun in different hands could’ve won trophies, prevented crime or filled the freezer.

    The common denominator here is callousness towards humanity caused or accompanied by some form of mental illness. All of these cases were riddled with red flags leading up to the attacks but nothing was done to prevent them.

    Question 3 is the proverbial bandaid on a broken arm. We should be focused on what makes these individuals want to perform such heinous acts rather than targeting everyone who owns, buys or borrows a gun. Universal background checks generalizes all gun owners/purchasers as potential criminals, which is as unfair as saying all immigrants are potential terrorists.

    In criminal law, there are three things that must be proved to determine guilt: motive, means and opportunity. Question 3 is an attempt to remove the means but if motive and opportunity still exist, other means will be found.

    While a 9mm killed 1 police officer and injured 16 others, it was two homemade bombs that killed 3 civilians and injured more than 260 people at the Boston Marathon. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured nearly 700 more in Oklahoma City using 5,000 lbs of homemade explosives in the back of a Ryder truck. Should we have background checks to buy a pressure cooker or rent a box truck?

    That’s my argument, however effective or ineffective it may be. Feel free to counter, but saying opponents of question 3 must be either irresponsible gun owners or criminals does little to gain my support.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.