Previous Post
Next Post

Maine gun store (

Email blast from Alex Geiger, a member of the Sportsmen’s Alliance of Maine and Gun Owners of Maine:

This proposal for Universal Background Checks will be vigorously challenged in Maine. However, it will take a MASSIVE public education effort to defeat this proposal. Below is a “cliff notes” list of reasons to OPPOSE this proposal (14 reasons in no particular order) . . .

1. Practically all the recent mass killers that used a gun (as opposed another inanimate object such as a knife or car) either passed a background check and/or stole the weapons they used. The background checks proved to be ineffective at stopping these crimes.

2. It is already illegal to knowingly sell a gun via private sale to an individual that is a “prohibited person”, or “across state lines” to a buyer who is not a resident of the same state.

3. The vast majority of gun sales go through Federal Firearms Licensees that must perform a background check on ALL gun sales (even at gun shows, over the Internet, etc…). There is NO so-called “gun show loophole” for these dealers.

4. The criminal element will not subject themselves to these private sale background checks. In fact, they tend to avoid private sales with UNKNOWN sellers for fear that they may be police gun sale “sting” operations. The criminal element generally obtains guns via theft, from other known criminal associates, or trusted family and friends via illegal “straw purchases”.

5. The Universal Background Checks can only be implemented with Universal Gun Registration (which history shows ultimately leads to Universal Gun Confiscation).

6. This proposal is deceptively “sold” (and polled) as coming into play during the PURCHASE (i.e. change of ownership) of a firearm, however, the actual details of the proposal also affects the POSSESSION of firearms (e.g. loaning a gun to a hunting buddy for hunting season / transfer of a gun during a shooting range practice session).

7. Universal Background Checks result in a de-facto a ban on handgun ownership for 18 to 21 year olds since Federal Law prohibits a Federal Firearms Licensee to transfer a handgun to anyone under the age of 21.

8. There is something inherently wrong in requiring citizens to obtain prior permission from the government before exercising U.S. Constitutional Rights – which is a basic problem with background checks in general. Implementing Universal Background Checks takes away the small sliver of freedom that still remains, and takes away liberties that Mainers have historically responsibly exercised.

9. The Maine UBC referendum effort is being driven and paid for by out-of-state interests, primarily former NYC Mayor Bloomberg. This is an out-of-state abuse of the Maine citizen initiative process, and is highly resented by Mainers.

10. The UBC referendum is in direct violation of the Maine State Constitution which states, “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms and this right shall NEVER be questioned”.

11. Mandating that citizens of a large rural state like Maine travel long distances to meet up at a Federal Firearm Dealer to get approval for a firearms transfer is an unfair burden on them.

12. Maine is one of the safest states in the nation – there is certainly no need for additional criminal checks on the citizenry. UBC is a failed New York solution to a problem that Maine does not have.

13. This UBC proposal is just another in a long line of burdensome regulatory and taxation requirements. Instead, we need to be reducing regulations as Maine successfully did with Constitutional Carry.

14. The ATF recently announced that it is already struggling with the current volume of gun background checks due to very high gun sales. Related to this, the FBI announced that they will suspend processing appeals for those citizens unjustly denied gun purchases (i.e. false positives). If you are wrongfully denied a gun purchase you have no recourse. In other words, your freedoms are in the hands of un-elected bureaucrats and you have NO recourse by purchasing a gun via a private sale.
Final Note: This whole issue reminds me of the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” whereby the general public’s confusion between full-auto and semi-auto was used to ban military-style rifles with certain cosmetic features (this law “sun-setted” 10 years later in 2004). One can only hope that the Maine people will be smart enough not to fall for this UBC deception.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Another point to consider is this:

      The Maine Attorney General (AG) would be tasked with leading the effort to prosecute and enforce any State referendum voter passed UBC law.

      However, according to the Maine AG’s website, in 2010, the 8 state-wide District Attorneys handled three (3) times the recommended American Bar Association case load.

      “…the extraordinarily heavy work load of the district attorneys and the assistant district attorneys is managed by way of long hours and hard work. Recent funding cutbacks place even greater pressures on the district attorneys…”.

      Some questions;

      1. If the Maine Prosecutors are struggling with the current caseload – how can they reasonably be expected to handle these newly hatched UBC “criminals”?

      2. If, because of #1 above, the Maine Prosecutors choose to “ignore” the newly passed UBC law, or selectively enforce it on a whim, what does that do to the public’s respect of the Judicial System, and “the rule of law” in Maine?

      3. If the backers know full well about #1 and #2, what does that tell you about their civic ethics and sincerity?

      Inform the voters of this, and let them draw their own conclusions.

      • or alternatively,

        Challenge the supporters of UBC with these questions — and WATCH THEM SQUIRM.

        Inform the voters of this

    • There is an important “unintended consequence” with regard to Reason #7
      (or maybe it is intended)

      Gun dealers can not transfer handguns to individuals under 21 years old.

      Yet, an 18 year old Maine resident can apply for a Maine “Resident Permit to Carry Concealed Handgun”.

      Currently, the “work around” is that the 18 year old can buy a handgun via a private sale. However, under UBC all sales and transfers must go through a gun dealer.

      This is a big problem that the proponents of UBC will not tell you about – the de-facto elimination of concealed carry for 18-21 year old Maine residents because they have no way of having a handgun transferred to them.

  1. Bllomberger at it yet again. Using his money to deceive the ignorant. Right out of the Obama Executive Handbook. If you cant do it in the States congress. Go around them by deceiving the “unwashed” public.

    • Yes indeed. Number 9 is the most important reason in this effort. I constantly remind my fellow Mainers that this is all being pushed and paid for by folks from away. If your here in Maine, you must tell this to everyone you talk to, anytime this comes up. We don’t like city folks bringing their ideas up here.

  2. This a exponentially tougher fight than winning (mostly) constitutional carry. The Robert hit it on the head by comparing this to the AWB. The misinformation regarding this is unbelievable. We have a very imortant and expensive fight ahead of us

  3. Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton’s own administration found that the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” was ineffective in preventing crime.

  4. You people who oppose common sense safety measures such as universal background checks are guilty of: ignoring the torrent of bloodshed happening everyday in every major city or town; refusing to do something (even if it fails) to stop the bloodshed; proliferating a culture where accidental shootings of innocent people are “just the cost of living in a free society”; satisfaction with the deaths of children, so long as they aren’t your own (then you would go out and murder the murderer without trial; cultural Luddites who cannot see that the world must move beyond the lawless days of history and stop the citizenry from killing itself off; callous disregard of even one life being saved by limiting or preventing gun sales, a life which might have brought us new prosperity and security; just don’t care what the majority of the nation thinks, so long as you can make things go boom or bang, just for fun.

    By your hardheadedness you have forfeited your right to the very freedom you claim can only be guaranteed by shooting another citizen in some sort of “self-defense” dream world. Confiscation is the only way to make society safe from millions of hayseeds who believe they can just go anywhere and do anything with a gun, and the rest of us just live (if we are lucky) with it. Even your own favored statistics tell you that most gun-related deaths are caused by “good guys with a gun”, not gangs and criminals. If just the “bad guys” had guns, the number of unnecessary deaths would be halved or nearly eliminated.

    You have crossed a red line. Society will come for your guns, and hopefully, come for you.

    It’s what you are up against, everywhere.

    • I actually read your ignorant, false screed, and was perhaps willing to engage you in debate, up until your next to last paragraph. To that, I can only respond – come and take it, coward.

        • “There is more to reading than looking at words.”

          You got that right.

          What part of “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” are you too stupid to understand?

          It reads in plain English “…shall not be infringed.”

          Not “…may not be infringed.”, it says “…shall not be infringed.”

          Why is that simple sentence so hard for an arrogant nitwit like you to understand?

          Are you unable or unwilling to comprehend such a simple sentence?


          • Why is it so difficult for so many to understand that repeating a mantra has no political effect? Why is it so difficult for so many to understand that chest-thumping garners no votes? Why is it so difficult for so many to understand that rattling the bones of ancients is powerless to fend off a committed adversary? Why is it so hard for so many to understand that knowing what doesn’t work is just as important as high-fiving the other bulls in the corral?

            You’ve not yet reached the point of looking at more than words.

        • “It’s what you are up against, everywhere.”

          Geoff, I figured you’d recognize the name and that line in his post would be the clue.

          Shall I give away the punchline? All except the last line are a rhetorical device. The last line is stating that fact. Think about what the “It” in that last sentence is referring to.

    • Let us hope they send better tyrants than your sorry ass. I also pray you’ll realize the ‘them’ you refer to will come after you long before the folks who can actually fight back. Revolutions eat their own.

      • Those who should be trusted with a gun will understand the posting/comment. Others never.

        BTW, the commentary did not degenerate to crude name-calling.

        • 2Asux, I understand your comment perfectly and it scares me. In a perfect world it would be fine, but this is not a perfect world. (like we don’t know that) Maybe you should read some history on the subject? A good start would be Germany from about 1915 to 1945. The regulations enacted early in that period were well intentioned as I am sure yours are. But when evil people gain control of the government and that information, they then have the means to disarm the general population. Makes it so much easier to control people when they are relatively defenseless. How did that work out for the Jews of Europe? The Poles? Gypsies? I’d prefer that that scenario was never possible in this country, and the 2nd Amendment is the cornerstone preventing that.

    • You’re supposed to only care about your own friends and family, that’s how human nature works. To demand that we feel just as much empathy for people we don’t even know as much as those we have cultivated relationships with for years, and in some cases decades, is sickening and unnatural. I bet you think wealth redistribution is a good idea too.

        • I re-read and reflected on your words upstream and I remain completely unconvinced. It’s always “just one more step” with you people isn’t it? One more bite-sized erosion of our rights until anything resembling the once bountiful cake is gone, and all that’s left are scant crumbs to be swept up later in the name of a “greater good” that doesn’t actually exist. You people talk of making a “compromise,” with UBCs, but all we’ve seen and heard from the antis since 1934 is “Well we didn’t take away ALL your 2nd Amendment rights this time, so be thankful.”

          Fifty years ago I could order any non-NFA firearm through a catalog and have it delivered to my doorstep, or I could throw cash on the counter at the hardware store and walk out with a new gun in as much time as it would take me to buy a hammer and nails, or I could go to an actual gun shop and repeat the same process. Buying a gun was infinitely easier than it is today, and yet the media’s favorite boogeyman, the mass shooting, was nonexistent back then because the Adam Lanza wannabes were disciplined until they cut that psychotic teen-angst crap out.

          So you tell me, what’s the real problem? Is it guns or the fifty-year degradation of parenting? I argue the latter, you may see differently. Either way, you’re trying to hold a nation of three-hundred million accountable for a statistical anomaly which is utterly preposterous. Stop trying to force us, especially those of us who know first-hand what it was really like to live in this country when it was free, to “see the light” of false utopia.

        • ” I remain completely unconvinced. “

          Read the last sentence as separate from what is above it.

          This is actually a pretty clever rhetorical trick. To see the real message here, one has to cut through one’s own emotional response to the words that are written as they appear to mean.

          The first reading is: “OMG! An Anti wrote this and he’s attacking me. Must … respond…”

          Then that last line jumps out, and a different message appears.

          I think of it as “training” for responding to the Anti’s. Some of us (myself included!) need to think before we respond to screed. The screed is a trap.

        • After a good night’s sleep I now realize that you sir, are one clever devil. Well played, well played indeed *passes cold beer*.

    • What will you do when said criminals come to your home and kick in your door with their guns?Call the police good luck buy the time they arrive you will be dead and they will be gone and if and when they ever do catch said criminals you will be gone… And with your logic what’s the point of charging them with your murder. Just let them go and hope they don’t do it again.. So I reject your fantasy and replace it with the reality the even if firearms where illegal criminals will still get them. So why don’t you do us all a favor and move to a gun free country and never come back.. End rant

      • Another who is not yet in the “trusted” category.

        Reading requires thinking, as well as seeing assembled characters in print.

    • There is no point in arguing with someone who produces rants like these.

      Here’s the thing; ‘shall not be infringed’. If you want to change that then great, go right ahead. Have some intellectual honesty and address this as it is meant to be addressed. Work towards a constitutional amendment that will overturn the second.

      Otherwise you are just another anti self defense and anti constitution looter, worthy only of being ignored by people of reason and honor.

      • “Shall not be infringed” is irrelevant; it is already infringed and more is on the way. Slogans are no prescription against commitment. Mindless repetition of favored phrases does not address the issue that escapes so many on this blog. With a near 50-50 national split on gun rights, you are not winning. Why? Maybe because ignoring what is uncomfortable is preferred? Like you know who? Read, read, think and understand.

    • Don’t feed the trolls and whatnot. His name says it all. He doesn’t believe what he is saying, he is just here to get a rise out of you all.

      • Not exactly. He’s one of us (posts here often), and he’s trying to state a very specific message. He’s being a bit tricky in doing it and “less clear” than we usually are with posts of this type.

        His ‘name’ is actually part of the message…ponder the name and the last sentence of his comment separate from everything else in the comment.

      • Close, but no cigar.

        There is more here that many people want to see, or are capable of recognizing. Getting “a rise” can sometimes be useful…for those who are among those who should be trusted. The general theme of “shall not be infringed” is not a winning proposition. Been tried, and failed (when half the country opposes your rights, you are not winning the conversation). There is great danger in clinging to worn-out phrases as a shield against the unpleasant.

    • Sir, you fail to address any of the facts and substantive measures in the article. If you would respond to the salient points in the article without emotional hyperbole and gnashing of teeth, and actually think about the facts rather than your myopic unattainable utopia, your understanding of the majority might improve.

      A majority of Americans do not support more gun control, as they understand it for what it is, a Trojan Horse. A majority of Americans are tired of the incessant meddling in their lives by an overbearing ill-informed and ignorant government which exists solely to feed itself. A majority of Americans distrust the federal government as they correctly see it represents itself and the bureaucrats and nothing more.

      A majority of Americans are not “Luddites”, “hayseeds”, “callous”, selfish, or attempting to impose their will on you, and yes, they care for children that are not their own.

      Please address the facts, and dispense with the ad hominem attacks, conjecture and hyperbole, Mr. 2Asux, but remember, the 1A allows you to state your opinion, and if you want to dispense with the 2A, the 1A will be the next victim of the PC Police.

      • Richard R.,

        See Scoutino’s comment below. The commenter 2Asux is on our side. He/she is writing in a very clever way to illustrate the faulty thinking of gun-grabbers. He/she is also illustrating how people quickly jump to incorrect conclusions — as evidenced from the fact that many of us on this forum have jumped to an incorrect conclusion about the EXACT nature of 2Asux comment.

      • Words are more that characters on a screen. Those who can truly read have already self-identified as ones to be trusted with firearms.

        Think it through. There is still time.

        • As a newer member with no history here, I will make my own judgments when I am prepared. That is not to say I do not believe you or trust you, nor the alternative.

          I will on my time, and I will hold the right dear, just as my 2A right.

          I can quite understand the Socratic methodology. Time will tell.

          As an aside, I lived in Colorado during the fateful Colorado UBC dust-up, and as two legislators were recalled after the Democrat Governor signed the UBC into law. They also passed an asinine 10 round magazine limit, and Magpul prioritized 30 round magazine shipments to Colorado residents. I was a beneficiary of said prioritization. As in Colorado, the battle will focus on Portland, where the libernazis abound. May we in the free areas win.

        • Go ahead and play games. I don’t play well when it comes to the BOR. Moon Labe does apply, if we continue on the path we are on.

          As I said, time will tell. Have a good day.

        • I know what has been stated to be your game or code or what ever you want to call it. I also understand it. What I have said is that you have not earned my trust yet, so no, I will not take what you say at face value.

          As I said, time will tell. Molon Labe does apply, because, Sir, THAT is the ultimate goal of Bloomberg and his cronies. You kid yourself, and others, if you think that the anti-2A crowd will stop at UBC in Maine or elsewhere. That is merely an incremental step.

          We must fight the UBC here and elsewhere, it is one of the cornerstones of their strategy. I also understand your methods, but given you do not seek my approval, nor I yours, is rather a rather moot issue. Sorry. Go grade someone else.

          • I will unpack everything for you….and whomever is still blasting off in the wrong direction:

            – 2Asux for those who hate it, for those who detest personal liberty, for those who want to bypass it without the effort to effect an amendment to the amendment.

            – Preaching to the choir has little effect on the national debate; gun-grabber arguments are attractive to at least half the population, which is not an indicator pro-gun “principles” are winning.

            – RF puts out nuggets on this blog, and the result is like watching a pack of wild dogs tear at a rabbit.

            – The vast majority of comments regarding gun rights look like what one would expect of a bunch of anti-gunners trying to make 2A advocates look like one-tooth hillbillies; all roar and no effect.

            – To be effective, pro-gun advocates need to find effective (not loud) ways to deal with anti-gun messaging (which is all about emotion and feelings); logic and law are not persuasive to true anti-gunners, and rarely capture the minds of “fence sitters”.

            – TTAG should be the premier pro-2A blog, have gravitas to be the “go to” spokesperson for media (in addition to PR elements of nationally known lobbists); screaming tired platitudes is not likely to be persuasive, because we have no groundswell of single-minded, purposeful, or respectable thinking on how to demonstrate to the other side why disarmament is dangerous.

            – Posting positions designed to get TTAG commenters and contributors to re-think the constant drumbeat of self-congratulatory chest-thumping is a means to present an opportunity for thoughtful reflection on how to better present the 2A case.

            – Pro-gun supporters need to get beyond the surface of issues, call their own prejudices into question, and thereby formulate more effective responses to anti-gunners.

            – And personally, I want to see TTAG members be moved to do the difficult…spend money not on guns, ammo and targets, but political activism (rallying and voting), and supporting those organizations who are battling the simple-minded liberals/progressives.

            – The divisiveness on display on this blog is atrocious; some postings are designed to get people to focus on what unites us, getting that message out, and reporting victories.

            It is that simple.

        • By the way, you write as do the anti-freedom crowd, never responding to facts and arguments, just sliding the pieces in different directions. Well played, if played at all.

          • You gotta be able to get into the thought processes of your adversary. The war is not fought the way I want, but the way my adversary thinks. It is little short of silly to fight limited war when your adversary is fighting total war, with your utter destruction the goal.

              • The anti crowd is fighting with total emotion, the other side is stuck with only facts and figures. Truism…”People are not convinced of something due to the height of your logic, but the depth of your emotion.” Any good sales person knows that facts and figures do not sell, which is why they try to get you to test drive as quickly as possible. Regardless of facts, more sales are made after the target has handled the item and visualized themselves as advantaged by association.

        • “It is that simple.”

          It sure took you awhile to get there [Sarcasm Off]

          Have you ever moderated a thread on concealed carry versus open carry? It is embarrassing:

          “RF puts out nuggets on this blog, and the result is like watching a pack of wild dogs tear at a rabbit.”

          We have met the enemy, and he is us. – Pogo

    • 2Asux plays “devil’s advocate” to show how the anti thinks and maybe to help us formulate out argument better.
      It took me a while to realize it when I saw it first time too.

    • You have two choices:

      1) Live as a free man, not needing another mans permission to own what you want.
      2) You can live as a slave, accepting being ruled by another who thinks that they know what is best for you, only to dominate you and force you to abide by their will and not your own.

      When you give up your liberties you then become a slave to someone else.

      The people who do not want you to own guns are the tyrants what want to rule over you and limit their fear of you to take their power away… It has been this way since the beginning of time and as history has shown, when you give up your liberties and guns then the government will kill more of their own citizens than any war or mass shootings for simply disagreeing with their ideology and challenging their rule. These people are the ones that want an Oligarchy and not a Republic…

      If you don’t want to own guns then that is your choice, but don’t make that decision for me, you don’t have that right, and no one says that your decision making is better than mine, or that you know what is best for me better than I do.

      If you are afraid of people who own guns then go hide in a closet or move to another country that has already ban gun ownership so that you will feel safer, and can be ruled over…

      • This is the comfortable response. It is much more difficult to see beyond our noses. Comfort is cold when it is a failed tactic.

    • Nice post – well parsed. Hit the proverbial nail on head with every point covered.

      This is indeed the propaganda we are up against every day from the antis who with the help of Herr Bloomberg’s money spread misinformation around for all low information voters to see and accept as gospel because ‘It was on TV’.

      The BIG problem with phony “Citizen Initiatives” sponsored by special interests like Bloomberg and his minion grabbers is they flood the media world with half-truths and lies designed to convince a largely often ambivalent, unknowing public to give up ‘rights’ and treasure (taxes) to their detriment.

      E.g.: CA, WA, etc., and now ME.

    • ” refusing to do something (even if it fails)”
      The Definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
      As has been shown and proven , background checks have not stopped people from committing acts against others .
      What you propose is that Maine copy the failings of other states . You are ok with presuming guilt rather than innocence before one may utilize a right . That IS what a background check is . Nowhere has there been “blood in the streets” after unconstitutional gun laws have been removed from the books . In fact , crime /murder has gone DOWN . Except of course in those areas that have the most restrictive gun laws ( see Chicago as an example) .
      Btw , you have no argument . You have talking points . Facts are thrown to the wayside for feelings . Feelings ( as in I “feel” safer) have no place in the conversation when it comes to rights . There is no such thing as a 100% safe utopia . Taking away the rights of others to be able to defend themselves to make you FEEL safer makes neither safer .
      If restrictive gun laws make you feel safer ( even though they do not actually make you safer) I am sure we could get a collection up and buy you a ticket to Chicago or DC so you can enjoy that feeling .

    • Isn’t it marvelous when a collectivist traitor to our system of ordered liberties cemands firearm confiscation — exactly the thing that our president says NOBODY is proposing. Then there’s the lovely name — “2Asux” — he hates the second amendment of the bill of rights. Then there is the echo of the “common sense” meme.

      Calling him / her “stupid would be an insult to stupid people. Do you think he realizes that the bill of rights is what prevents him from being dragged out of his mom’s basement and lynched for treason? My bet is YES. He believes that,with the pesky second out dispensed with, the door is open to remake Maine into Chicago or DC.

    • So you are a politician!. Why are you out here? If your language is any indication. Stay out of this. Obviously you own multiple weapons. So what is your home protection like?

  5. If Trump has taught us anything, it is that we really need to include “Because Fuk-em, that’s why!” in all these educational materials

  6. I do wonder why they even have these ballots in the first place. Why are they legal? The whole reason we are a representative democracy is because direct democracy is mob rule and also means there is no real formal debate on the issue. There are no hearings or testifying or anything like that. Thus a lot of people will vote for the measure who otherwise would not if they actually knew what UBCs entail.

    • Perhaps if our representatives actually represented us, instead of their party leadership or whichever special interest or corporation who wrote the most recent check to them, people wouldn’t feel the need to have this sort of alternative means of bringing issues before the public.

      • Geo. Washington and others warned against political parties. Nothing has changed, and will not because people are people, and mankind has the basest of moral principles…unless taught and encouraged to overcome rampant selfishness. The founders were men engaged daily in the political discourse of the day. They likely had no vision of common people, distracted by the daily struggle to feed a family, having a vote. Which made the warnings all the more insightful.

  7. As a lifelong Mainer, the #9 mark is the most frustrating.

    This is not by Maine people for Maine people. This is out of state money trying to legislate against a non-issue, with a “solution” that is only provable/enforceable by enacting further legislation that is federally prohibited.

    • Welcome to the problem we in the South have been facing for, oh, about 140 years.

      Carpetbagging is a thing, and it’s still going on.

    • Don’t these referenda have to pass constitutional scrutiny, either before going on a ballot or becoming law? Could any nonsense with enough petitions be certified for a ballot?

      • Answers to your questions:



        Yes, anyone can get a referendum on anything short of a referendum calling for the execution of all people.

  8. I am compelled to point out to everyone that the following aspects of universal background checks are a feature, not a bug!

    5. The Universal Background Checks can only be implemented with Universal Gun Registration (which history shows ultimately leads to Universal Gun Confiscation).

    6. This proposal is deceptively “sold” (and polled) as coming into play during the PURCHASE (i.e. change of ownership) of a firearm, however, the actual details of the proposal also affects the POSSESSION of firearms (e.g. loaning a gun to a hunting buddy for hunting season / transfer of a gun during a shooting range practice session).

    7. Universal Background Checks result in a de-facto a ban on handgun ownership for 18 to 21 year olds since Federal Law prohibits a Federal Firearms Licensee to transfer a handgun to anyone under the age of 21.

    11. Mandating that citizens of a large rural state like Maine travel long distances to meet up at a Federal Firearm Dealer to get approval for a firearms transfer is an unfair burden on them.

    • Precisely. Government drones and mandarins are always looking for ways to get what they want by making it as difficult as possible to not comply (unless they are looking for more budget, then they over-comply with their own policies to prove how much more budget they need). Courts has sometimes overruled attempts to effectively prevent a legal act by putting insurmountable burdens on the public; sometimes. A recent episode here was a perfect example: auto accident, CHP citizen was injured and taken to ER. Medic discovered the concealed handgun, and called for security. Security called for local PD. Cop confiscated the gun for “safety”; gun went into evidence closet. Injured gun owner recovered and attempted to retrieve handgun. PD refused to return same because the gun had been “transferred” into their possession, but they lacked an FFL to permit transfer back to original owner. PD has no intention of obtaining the FFL; gun owner now disarmed (unless she bought a new piece). Disarmed citizen is the goal. Project complete.

  9. The dichotomy here is interesting and also illustrative of the problems we face.

    Maine is pro-gun enough to have recently passed Constitutional carry legislation. Yes these same Mainers who pushed their elected officials to support this legislation naively support universal background checks. The problem is surely because most don’t see a problem with them.

    That means we have a communication problem. These Mainers need to understand that background checks
    1) mean you now need permission from the government to exercise a fundamental right.
    2) mean that the government can shut down the sale of firearms by having a “NICS outage”. As someone who used to have a FFL in CT, I can tell you that since CT fronts the NICS system with their own computer systems, there are often outages. Dealers know because they receive a Robocall from the CT DESPP saying, “sorry, but we’re not really sorry. No further sales until the system is up.” The DESPP also cancels the Second Amendment when it snows out and only “essential” government personnel need to go into work.

    In short, Mainers need to understand that universal background checks converts a right into a privilege.


    • “Maine is pro-gun enough to have recently passed Constitutional carry legislation. Yet these same Mainers who pushed their elected officials to support this legislation naively support universal background checks”.

      Not true.

      The same Mainers who defeated the anti-gun Bear hunting referendum and succeeded in passing Constitutional Carry (and there are THOUSANDS of them) oppose this Universal Background Check referendum. The problem is the misled general public.

      But fear not – this UBC referendum in Maine will be defeated.

      The key to success is to educate and convince prominent and respected opinion leaders in the state to OPPOSE this referendum. The real battle is taking place NOW behind the scenes with each side desperately lining up as many of these leaders as possible.

      There is something very powerful when you have TRUTH on your side so a lot of these key people will come out opposed to this UBC referendum.

      The general public, although confused and unsure about this, will listen to their local trusted opinion leaders OVER carpetbagger Bloomberg and his minions.

      The good news is that we have 10 long months to be Bloomberg’s worst nightmare. Once he starts his emotional media propaganda blitz, all the key opinion leaders in Maine will have weighed in + the general public will know what the lies are before he can even spew them out.

      Stay tuned and see how we do things in Maine with out-of-state meddlers.

    • Here is some recent “real world” experience related to Reason #14 (and Don’s point about government being able to stop gun sales at any time).

      Oregon implemented Bloomberg’s Universal Background Checks (legislatively), and it is now getting very bad for gun owners there since they have no working recourse for “false positive” UBC gun sale denials.

      This is an indication of where they would like to take Maine.


      “Virtually not a day goes by that we don’t hear from someone who has been delayed or denied without cause by the bureaucrats in the ID unit. Until now, gun buyers at least had the safeguard of being legally allowed to take possession of the firearm after three days if they had not been officially “denied.” Under this (new) proposed legislation, even that safeguard will be stripped away.

      Under LC 263 if the OSP choses to delay your purchase, you are simply out of luck. They may delay it forever.

      The OSP ID Unit has made it their policy to ignore or stonewall any effort to correct faulty information that leads to delays and denials. We hear from people regularly who cannot get their calls returned and thus have their rights eliminated until the ID unit gets around to investigating the delay or denial.

      The ATF has suspended processing appeals by people who have been denied without cause”

  10. Just like humane society of united states going after methods of bear hunting in ’14, Bloomberg is going after our gun rights.

    Outside groups see maine as a cheap date, advertising and influence doesn’t cost much because of our small population size. They think they can use us as a bellweather for their cause.
    We are not like southern new england. Well, maybe portland is, but they don’t rule the state.

  11. Why does every “Gun Safety” proposal use states and cities with the highest murder rates as a model?

  12. 2Asux, You think the Second Amendment sucks because you have an un-natural fear of what you don’t understand. The second amendment is a cornerstone of the American Experiment in self governance. Personal responsibility and a high sense of morality is essential to our civilized society. Liberals continually erode that responsibility and morality resulting in a less civilized society. There are 100s of millions of responsible gun owners that deserve the ability to protect themselves from morally corrupt, irresponsible liberal societal leaches sucking the life out of prosperity.

    The data doesn’t lie, more legally owned guns result in less crime. Lawbreakers are big proponents of increased gun control, unarmed populations are seen as target rich environments. If a lawbreaker wants to wreak havoc, they will find away. Not one of these proposals would have stopped a single mass murder. Every year armed citizens defend themselves and others and save lives.

    • A bit late to the party. Give it another go. Read and think. Blind reaction will lead you astray and into derision.

  13. Why are we allowing this to be an issue. Provisions in the CONSTITUTION of the State of MAINE CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION!!! THIS IS AN ATTEMPTED ILLEGAL USURPATION OF THE first LAW OF THE STATE. Where is the AG!! they should stop this in its tracks, RIGHT NOW!!

Comments are closed.