Letter to the Editor: Twelve Maine sheriffs oppose Question 3

2 mins read

Today, the undersigned sheriffs in the state of Maine announce our formal opposition to Question 3, a ballot initiative expanding firearm background checks that will appear on the ballot this fall.

We strongly believe the people of Maine should know that the chief law enforcement officer from 12 of the 16 counties who are elected to protect your families and homes do not support the Question 3 ballot initiative.

This measure will do nothing to stop evil people from getting their hands on guns. In fact, all relevant data indicates that criminals acquire firearms through theft and the black market. This initiative will not stop the reoccurring pattern.

We live in one of the safest states in the country and strongly believe no provisions in this legislation would reduce gun violence or crime in Maine. In fact, Question 3 is unenforceable, confusing, poorly written and threatens to make law-abiding gun owners into criminals for simply loaning a firearm to a friend. By and large, the people who commit crimes with firearms are not concerned with good citizenship, compliance with existing law and are repeat offenders. It’s the law-abiding citizens who comply with gun laws that are the most affected by arbitrary gun laws and will be most affected by Question 3.

As anyone who has gone through the process to legally obtain a firearm in Maine knows, there is no dearth of existing laws that regulate the sale, purchase, and transfer of firearms. As members of the law enforcement community, we support public policy that targets criminals and lends to the full prosecution of those individuals under the law. We will continue to develop and promote worthwhile crime fighting proposals and effective firearm laws at all levels of government. We cannot, however, support Question 3.

Signed by:

Androscoggin County Sheriff Eric Samson, Aroostook County Sheriff Darrell O. Crandall, Hancock County Sheriff Scott Kane, Knox County Sheriff Donna Dennison, Franklin County Sheriff Scott Nichols, Oxford County Sheriff Wayne J. Gallant, Penobscot County Sheriff Troy Morton, Piscataquis County Sheriff John J. Goggin, Somerset County Sheriff Dale Lancaster, Waldo County Sheriff Jeffrey C. Trafton, Washington County Sheriff Barry Curtis, and York County Sheriff William King.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

42 Comments

  1. Don’t let a billionaire from New York strip our Rights from us and imprison honest hard working Mainers.
    VOTE NO ON QUESTION 3.

  2. Now that is the type of endorsement information the public needs to have a better understanding of the ‘value’ of this initiative. If top law enforcement do not support stronger gun regulations then I would agree as they are the experts not me. Thank you for your candor and opinion.

  3. All ELECTED officials. Who presumably want to be re-elected and think they know which way the wind blows.

  4. George, you don’t need experts just read the Maine constitution.

    Article I.
    Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

  5. The very shallow ads in support of question 3 ignore the oppressive other things that are hidden in that proposed law. Liberty is important. What is never talked about is how many of these so called discoveries of out of state firearms crimes done with Maine sourced, loophole based guns, are the results of thefts. The ads supporting Question 3 are deceptive by leaving out important facts. The expense involved in lending guns is never explained or mentioned.

  6. Hutch: Then how come felons can’t possess firearms? They’re still citizens.

    It’s all silly nonsense. You people need to worry more about making a living and less about somebody taking away your representations of masculinity.

  7. Can the proposers of this Article #3 absolutely guarantee the safety of the PUBLIC if this passes??? NO they can’t. We have enough laws on the BOOKS now. Will the highly elected officials do away with all their Secret Service Bodyguards and their own personal firearms to show their belief that this will work. – Of course they WON”T. The courts have plea bargained many cases to a slap on the wrist, check the system out. Read the outcomes of the court cases in the newspapers or on-line. The only GUN SAFE PLACE is HEAVEN.

  8. Bill Reid: go read the law for yourself. You may very well still disagree with it but at least you’ll know the truth from fiction. It takes less than ten seconds to download it from the state. there isn’t any “expense” to loan a gun.

    I know of one specific instance where a gun was purchased legally in Maine, and then sold to a person to commit a crime; the Marathon bombers gun that they used to kill a MIT cop. That is absolutely documented and proven. It was bought at Cabela’s in Scarborough, by a guy who went by the street name of ice, (something like that name anyway). The entire story was in the news.

    Regardless of if you’re for Prop.3 or against it, get the info straight. This election season has had way too much BS flying around.

  9. THE FALCON:
    Can there be a guarantee that no one will ever commit murder? No. So, should we just forget about making that a crime?
    How about robbery, or rape? Arson? shoplifting? People still do all that stuff, why do we bother to make those things illegal?
    That is the most specious argument ever made. Look it up.

  10. amanda: How about the guy who accidentally shot his girlfriend’s head in the Wal-Mart parking lot this summer- if this law was in effect, he wouldn’t have been able to to that legally. Yeah, he might still have done it- but maybe not. It just might have been that extra little incentive to prevent being so stupid.

  11. Sounds like @snow man is living in the wrong area of the state. Maybe he would fare better in Portland.

  12. snow man

    October 12, 2016 • 4:43 pm
    .
    ” Hutch: Then how come felons can’t possess firearms? They’re still citizens.

    It’s all silly nonsense. You people need to worry more about making a living and less about somebody taking away your representations of masculinity.”

    Do you ever think before you post? By the very nature of someone being classified as a felon, denotes they’ve lost certain rights, possession of a firearm is one.

    Follow your own advice and go get a job, and stop worrying about our masculinity, your embarrassing yourself with yours showing …

  13. Franklinite: Yes, I do indeed think before I post.

    Do you think at all?

    If the Maine State Constitution states that the right to possess a firearm may not be infringed, and yet the state does infringe on the right, by forbidding the possession of a firearm, it therefore must negate the constitution or flaunt it.
    Thus, the argument that another law may infringe on that right granted in the state constitution is moot.
    So your argument against Prop. three fails.

    The fact is, federal laws trumps (ha!, only fit way to use the word) state law. That silly little clause in the state constitution isn’t worth the ink it took to print it, because it’s moot.
    It’s legal to forbid possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, because the federal courts ruled it. And – Prop. three would also be legal.

  14. Ryan:

    October 12, 2016 • 10:45 am
    Don’t let a billionaire from New York strip our Rights from us and imprison honest hard working Mainers.
    VOTE NO ON QUESTION 3.

    Hey Ryan, do you think this is how it felt when the rich Northerners told the south to end segregation?
    In other words, just because they are from out of state and have chosen to spend their money for a cause, doesn’t mean the cause is wrong or unjust.
    Just sayin.

  15. amanda
    October 12, 2016 • 6:57 pm
    Snowman, how is the air up there on your pedestal?

    AMANDA-
    It’s great up here. The Mother of Exiles and I high five it when no one is looking.

  16. Don’t believe all the “info” posted by out of state groups like the NRA. Their ads are deceptive and dishonest. You CAN transfer a gun to anyone you want without a background check. The person transferring the gun just has to be PRESENT when the transfer occurs. You just won’t be able to leave guns for someone else to take any time they want: you must be there physically, which is common sense and responsible gun ownership. You also don’t need a check to transfer to someone in your family. You CAN loan a gun to someone for target practice at the local gravel pit, unless prohibited by local ordinance.
    There is so much disinformation and outright lies out there about this issue that you need to read the actual law, NOT what someone else says it means. Also, look at our top law enforcement officials for their opinions. They are the experts and the State Police have come out in favor of this issue. They are the ones putting their lives on the line, and they are not sniffing the winds as the local elected officials are.
    This is just another example of paranoia and fear: we are told this will be just the beginning of losing ALL of your guns. This law can be changed at any time, and keep in mind that we had an assault weapons ban by the feds for 10 years before it went away. Of course that was before our politics came under the “gun” of the NRA and our elected officials responded to the widespread plea for common sense gun control. Now if they come out in favor of common sense gun control they risk the wrath of the NRA, which has spent millions each year fighting something that the vast majority of people in this country support. Unfortunately our elected officials won’t compromise and do the people’s business, so we must do their job. Power to the people, as it should be!
    While this law won’t guarantee absolute safety, I will sleep a little easier knowing that many people who shouldn’t have a gun won’t be able to exploit the loophole we currently have. As it is now a terrorist on the “no fly list” can exploit the current situation and buy a gun at a show without a background check. Is that safe?
    Bottom line is that ALL rights under the Constitution have limits on them. Free speech and all the others have necessary limits to protect all of us from abuse. The courts have consistently found that there ARE legal limits on “arms”. I would hope you agree that while a nuclear device is considered an “arm” nobody needs them! Felons have forfeited their “right” to own a gun, and I don’t think you would want them to have the same rights law abiding people have.
    When this passes you will be able to do virtually everything you ought to be doing right now. You will just have to do a background check to buy a gun at a gun show or from Uncle Henry’s, just like you do to buy one at a dealer. Is the gun from the gun show any safer than the one from a licensed dealer?

  17. Whoa Snowman, I guess you told me didn’t you! See you later, I’m heading back to reality …

  18. TO: Move On,

    Please look at the proposed legislation:

    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.

    Transfer Means:
    “Transfer” means to sell, furnish, give, lend, deliver or otherwise provide, with or without consideration( Title 17-A, section 554-A, subsection 1, paragraph A)

    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:

    (4) In the actual presence of the transferor.

    So the only transfer that can take place in the presence of the transferor is only a TEMPORARY one. Who knows what the state considers “temporary”, but we can assume that means the gun would be going back to the transferor at some time.

    You can read all the legislation for the 5 ballot questions at http://maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/citizens/

  19. UMF Student:
    That’s cute, You make it appear that you have added the pertinent parts of the proposal to your comment, to prove the truth of your assertions, yet you manage to leave the rest that disproves it. Granted, you did indeed add the link to the entire proposal. But not many follow those links and I suspect you know that.
    So lets set the record straight, with all of the rest of the proposal from section F.

    The truth shall set us free…

    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.

  20. representations of masculinity
    Someone is threatening top take away my man goods???
    Sounds like a hillary thing..
    But I myself am the representation of masculinity…
    Egads!!

    Hey Snow..
    We ain’t seen a divided country yet..
    Wait till Hillary gets going.
    The backlash will be historic.
    But maybe that will finally wake us up and stop drinking the cool aid so we can toss these pathetic candidates.

    To the Libs..be careful what you wish for.

  21. Franklinite:
    Here’s the one difference between you and I that I feel really matters. It’s not the difference in political views, or economic philosophy; it’s that when I am proven to be wrong, I can own up to it and graciously admit my error.

    How do I know when I have proven my point? I know when the other commenters resort to name calling, (ad hominem attacks) or suggest I should go somewhere else, or just stop posting comments.

  22. Snowman, please give one example of you graciously admitting your error.

    Just because people stop commenting doesn’t mean you’ve proven your point.

  23. I know, I know, I said I was gone but morbid curiosity got the better of me … Snowbell, that’s the difference between you and most of the commenters on here, it’s not about winning or losing, it’s about offering a different perspective. You seem to think it’s all about the data, data can be easily manipulated. I’ve said it before, we need to take all the material out there with a grain of salt and weigh it against our own experience’s. All you generally do is say, read this, read that, even the quote you offered showing parts of the proposed law just adds to the reason why so many people are against question 3, too much baloney. to most people in the real world they are designed to keep the lawyers employed because normal people don’t speak legalese.

    Now who’s being cute? Snowbell: ” it’s that when I am proven to be wrong, I can own up to it and graciously admit my error.

    How do I know when I have proven my point? I know when the other commenters resort to name calling, (ad hominem attacks) or suggest I should go somewhere else, or just stop posting comments.”

    Now that’s the kettle calling the pot black … lol

  24. Snowman admitting he has been proven wrong and a snowballs chance in hell.
    Nada!!

    Just sayin…

  25. On a shooting range, hunting, trapping or to prevent eminent death. All as long as the person is not prohibited from owning one.
    I have my Curio and relic license.
    Curio and Relic applies to guns manufactured in 1946 or before. The license allows an individual to purchase these guns (no NFA items) without a background check, as the license is proof of having passed the extended background checks as required by the ATF in order to obtain the license.
    Truth be told, it is totally unenforceable. We don’t have police officers on every doorstep, there really is no practical way to enforce it. This is a tandem bill which wouldn’t take nothing to make this bill and add a gun trust clause, like there is for NFA items. Vote no on 3.

  26. And the Maine Chiefs of Police Association takes the opposite view — they ENDORSE Question 3. I know many of them, and I trust *that “posse’s” opinion far more. Vote YES on 3.

  27. We all know that “a certain political party” and its Socialist Wannabees and Freeloader Flunkies want to take guns away from all private citizens. They’re like Deer Ticks, annoying and irritating until somebody gets tired of them and finally picks ’em off

  28. Arnold P, tell the Maine Chiefs of Police Association — 350+ members including active & retired chiefs, sheriffs and senior law enforcement leaders — that you consider them “Socialist Wannabees and Freeloader Flunkies.”

  29. There are all kinds of bigots in America and Maine. There are those bigoted against blacks, Jews, the French, rottweilers, pit bulls etc., and, guess what, people bigoted against firearms owners. We have some of those bigots here on this question putting in their two cents worth.

  30. Bill Reid
    It is ironic that you include “people bigoted against firearms owners” in your list, but not “people bigoted against those who support common sense gun reforms”; if you look back through the commentary it is the ones in support of gun control who mostly give facts and data, and the others who do most of the disparagement and name-calling. It would be great if everyone could stick with the facts instead of lumping everyone they disagree with into some “group” to be biased against. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind on the issues based on the real facts, and to state their opinion. We don’t need all of the put-downs, from either side.

  31. Just look at the link and see Question 3. Go to the end which is the SUMMARY.
    If you have adequate reading comprehension skills, you will see that this question is about background checks. If you disagree with being a data base, just say so. This is NOT about taking your guns away as many would have you believe.
    http://maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/citizens/

  32. Fact: Seung-Hui Cho passed a background check after accusations that he was stalking two women on campus.

    Fact: Omar Mateen passed a background check after being investigated by the FBI for possible terrorism.

    Fact: Jared Loughner passed a background check.

    Fact: James Holmes passed background checks.

    Fact: Approximately 20 guns were stolen from a pawn shop in Bangor. Opinion: The thieves won’t care if background checks are mandatory.

  33. If background checks are so innocuous, why is there so much resistance?

    Cho, Mateen, Loughner, and Holmes all had mental health issues, but that info. was not “on file” with the Feds.. BETTER data, better background checks would be in order, in my opinion. The states all have responsibility to submit such data. People knew, courts knew, schools knew about these guys’ problems, but they dropped the ball.

    I support the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/brady-campaign-congress-4500-people-died-gun-violence/story?id=41903136

  34. They aren’t innocuous, they are, in the case of serious criminals, ineffective. Why waste money on legislation that is ineffective and, according to a majority of sheriffs and game wardens, impossible to enforce?

    A background check may prevent a person from purchasing a gun, but that’s only a temporary hurdle.

    There is a law against selling firearms to out of state buyers without a firearms license but that didn’t stop Randy Goodwin from peddling more than 150 guns out of state. When he was investigated by ATF he even told an undercover agent how to file the serial number off the gun.

    I support any campaign against any kind of violence, so long as it doesn’t make me a criminal for harmlessly borrowing a gun from someone who trusts me enough to give me the combination to his gun safe.

  35. Marie, Question 3 doesn’t provide better data or better background checks. And the Brady Campaign includes suicide by firearms which provides an inaccurate statistic.

    The pot and the kettle, who exactly are you to make the claim that supporters of question 3 are “those who support common sense gun reforms”? Apparently common sense means different things to different people. Common sense tells me this legislation will be difficult to enforce and doesn’t close the loophole as perfectly as we are being told.

    I’ve heard people say “you need a license to drive a car…” But just because you need a license to drive a car doesn’t mean you have to pass a driving test every time you buy a vehicle.

    I would sooner support legislation whereby you pass a background check to have a license to own a firearm. So long as you have a valid license you can own as many or as few as you like. If I buy a gun from you, you confirm I have a license, a responsible person would even write down the license number in case the police come knocking on their door someday. While I don’t think this would prevent all crimes, it seems to me that it would be easier to enforce and less of a nuisance for everyone.

    To me supporting question 3 is like wearing pink to support a friend who is fighting breast cancer. It makes you feel like you’re actually making a difference even though it won’t do anything to cure breast cancer.

    My favorite part of the proposed law is where it says:
    “The transferor…has no reason to believe that the
    transferee intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime”. How many of us would say ” Oh, you want to rob a bank? Here, use my gun”?

  36. The only way this law could be enforced, is if all firearms were registered.. Anyone care to bet on how long registration is walked out?

    Sheriffs are elected.. Maine State Police officials are appointed.. If you were able to canvass the rank and file MSP, you’d most likely find they are against 3. The appointed officials are stating what their “masters” are telling them to say.

    To equate a right (firearms, the 2nd) to driver’s liscences, which are a privilege and not a right is erroneous.

    Common sense appears to be something the anti rights people are lacking. Bloomberg is a gun zealot. He has no business trying to influence anything in Maine.. Most off of his “common sense” laws he implemented in NY have been repealed or overturned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.