Gun control group submits petitions for Maine ballot measure

[jpak]

Source: Portland Press Herald

AUGUSTA — Maine election officials are verifying petitions for a ballot measure requiring criminal background checks for all private gun sales in the state.

The group Maine Moms Demand Action submitted petitions to the Secretary of State’s office Tuesday. Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn says the group claimed it has more than 72,000 signatures certified by cities and towns.

Flynn’s office has until Feb. 18 to verify the petitions. The group needs 61,123 valid signatures to send the measure to the state ballot in November.

If certified for the Maine ballot, the campaign to expand Maine’s background check requirements is expected to draw considerable interest – and money – from gun control advocates and gun owners’ rights groups in Maine and around the country.

<more>

Read more: http://www.pressherald.com/2016/01/20/gun-control-group-submits-petitions-for-maine-ballot-measure/

---

[alex_giger]

1. Numerous Problems with 2016 Maine Universal Background Check Referendum

Last edited Wed Apr 13, 2016, 06:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Dear Readers,

There are numerous problems with this upcoming Universal Background Check (UBC) Referendum. Below is a partial list of the consequences of this gun control proposal.

1. The fact is that this would take away freedoms, and impose time and money costs, on Mainers who have traditionally exercised their private sale and transfer freedoms responsibly.

2. The fact is that this referendum goes way beyond gun SALES, and also controls all but a few narrowly defined gun TRANSFERS.

For example, loaning a gun for a couple of weeks to the trusted victim of domestic abuse for personal protection would require a trip to a gun dealer to process the "transfer" - both coming AND going.

3. The fact is that police and prosecutors are already overburdened, and creating a whole new class of "victim-less crime" UBC "criminals" has no realistic chance of being fairly and uniformly enforced or prosecuted. Please see Portland Press Herald Letter to the Editor dated 02/11/16, and Bangor Daily News Letter to the Editor dated 02/08/16.

4. The fact is that young people aged 18-20 would have a de-facto handgun ban imposed on them by this referendum; without any discussion, debate, or due process. Please see SUN JOURNAL Letter to the Editor dated 02/04/16, and Bangor Daily News Letter to the Editor dated 04/13/16.

5. The fact is that former NYC Mayor Bloomberg is behind this referendum. He paid for the signature gathering, getting it on the ballot, and he will pay the millions to promote it via ads, direct mail, TV commercials, etc. He has made a mockery of the citizen's initiative process in Maine.

There are many other problems with the referendum, but I will leave the reader to ponder these five (5) concern areas on their journey to really, really understanding what this gun control referendum is about.

Regards,

Alex Giger
Naples, ME

[jpak]

2. What a load of crap

[alex_giger]

7. Maine Universal Background Check Referendum to result in Handgun Ban

Dear Readers,

The proponents of this Universal Background Check are not telling you that it will result in a de-facto handgun ban for 18-20 year olds; with no discussion, no debate, or due process. This is a deceptive and insidious consequence of this proposal.

Please read below a re-print of SUN JOURNAL Letter to the Editor dated 02/04/16 for an explanation of why this is the case.

Please see Washington Post article by David Kopel dated 11-05-15
Please see DC Gun Rights article by Mike Stollenwerk dated 02-03-13

===================

There is “more than meets the eye” with the upcoming universal background check referendum. The public is not being told that passage would result in a de-facto ban on handgun ownership for Maine residents aged 18 to 20. Here is why:

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 requires that 18- to 20-year-olds buy handguns privately. Gun dealers are barred by that law from transferring a handgun to anyone under the age of 21.

The NRA mounted a legal challenge to that, claiming that the 18-20-year-olds should be able to buy a handgun from a gun dealer. However, in 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled against the NRA since 18-to-20-year-olds had the option to buy handguns through private sales.

However, if voters pass the referendum, private gun sales will become much more difficult to do legally, effectively shutting the door on handgun purchases by those people who are 18 to 20 years old.

The referendum is an insidious and deceptive way to take away the rights of young people in that age group. They deserve to have their civil rights protected, not stripped away in an underhanded fashion.

I now understand why the issue of universal background checks was rejected at the national level in 2013 and why Maine voters should reject it now in 2016.

[jpak]

8. I think that is a good thing.

Unless they are in the Army - they shouldn't have handguns.

yup

[alex_giger]

9. Civil Rights Violations, Contravention of State Law, Significant New Gun Control

Dear Readers,

If the voters were to pass the Universal Background Check referendum, it would effectively "gut" Maine State law with regard to handgun ownership and concealed carry rights for the 18-20 year old age group.

This would represent a significant imposition of new gun control in Maine.

Readers should be aware that persons 18 years and older can own handguns in Maine.

Readers should be aware that persons 18 years and older can apply for a Maine concealed carry permit.

The voters of Maine owe these young people an open and proper discussion / debate before stripping them of their civil rights by voting for this referendum.

We need to learn from the experience in Washington State (via referendum) and Oregon (via legislation) that imposed this "back door" handgun ban when they implemented Universal Background Checks.

We can do better for these young people in Maine.

[jpak]

11. We can do better by giving them free college tuition - not handguns.

Gun nuts want sex offenders to have easy access to guns....

Police arrest Warren sex offender on gun charge

https://bangordailynews.com/2016/02/29/news/midcoast/police-arrest-warren-sex-offender-on-gun-charge/

?strip=all

and people are sick of asshloles like this guy..

Felon accused of attacking man with gun in Somerset County

https://bangordailynews.com/2016/02/25/news/police-beat/felon-accused-of-attacking-man-with-gun-in-somerset-county/

?strip=all

When we pass UBC in November, not only will it be harder for thugs to get guns, we can prosecute the gun runners that give them guns...

And take their guns from them.

yup

[alex_giger]

13. "Felons in Possession" (of guns)

Good luck in getting guys like these to comply with your Universal Background Check proposal.

[jpak]

14. Again - when they are caught, UBC can be used to prosecute the provider

and we can take his Holy Gunz from him.

More guns gone...

yup

Here's another asshole gun nuts want to give guns to...

Two face drug, weapon charges after bail check in Rockland

https://bangordailynews.com/2016/02/19/news/midcoast/two-face-drug-weapon-charges-after-bail-check-in-rockland/

[alex_giger]

15. Straw Purchasers and Criminal Associates

No need for a new law - it is already illegal to furnish a gun to a convicted felon ("felon in possession&quot .

We can already go after so-called "straw purchasers" who have clean records and buy guns for criminals.

We can already go after criminal associates that supply convicted felons with guns.

Why aren't we?

[jpak]

16. When we pass UBC - we will have a better tool to prosecute so-called "law abiders"

that give guns to felons.

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Your mooted law would have no additional effect on straw purchases

[jpak]

26. But with UBC there would be a traceable record of ownership

and if the last "lawabider" didn't do a background check and transferred it to a felon...

Said "lawabider" would be prosecuted and have his precious guns taken away.

A good thing.

yup

[Chan790]

31. I consider #1, 2, and 4 to be benefits of the law. #5 is irrelevant from my perspective.

So...really all the opponents of sane gun laws have is #3. I don't think that's sufficient to impede sensible gun laws.

[alex_giger]

35. 2014 Universal Background Check Referendum "Buyers Remorse" in Washington State

There is a saying, "those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it".

Washington State passed a Universal Background Check Referendum in 2014 and the law is being roundly ignored and unenforced.

http://www.king5.com/story/news/2016/01/05/gun-buyers-may-not-be-following-background-check-law/78323388/

Police groups in Washington State were opposed to the Universal Background Check referendum.

https://www.voteno594.com/media/1124/wacops-position-paper-color.pdf
http://wslefia.com/?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=I2D59420and20Law20Enforcement

A real life example of "Irish Democracy" in action (i.e. non-compliance with an unjust law).

[Chan790]

36. Look at CT instead.

It far closer mirrors the circumstances on the ground in ME.

Hint: It's working here. Beautifully. There is nothing unjust about gun-control, nor is there anything unconstitutional or anything that the founding fathers would disagree with. Sane laws for a sane nation.

If WA is having problems with enforcement...that's an argument to shit-can the personnel refusing or unable to enforce the law and replace them with those willing to do so. Selective enforcement of law is not a permissible response...if the law is bad, repeal it. Oh wait, that's not going to happen because the majority of Washingtonians still support the law as written and want it enforced as written. If the law is unjust or unconstitutional, go to court to have it overturned. Oh wait, tried that; failed. If law-enforcement will not enforce the law as written, they should go find different jobs.

I personally can't wait until guns are so hard to obtain or possess that people say "fuck it!" and gun ownership drops. This is a fight to the death, Alex, that we have every intention of winning.

[alex_giger]

38. Gun Control the modern day Alcohol Prohibition

Chan790,

Substitute the word "evil rum' for "evil black rifle" and you are sent in a time warp back 100 years to Prohibition.

Gun Prohibition, Alcohol Prohibition, Drug Prohibition - never has worked, never will work.

You are very naive.

All that can be done is to criminalize these activities, they can never be eradicated.

How did that Alcohol Prohibition work out? How is the Drug Prohibition working out?

HINT: That is how Gun Prohibition would work out.

[Chan790]

39. There is a difference.

Any idjit can distill bathtub gin or make low-grade meth or grow a pot plant.

Gun control will work for the same reason that the bans on Kinder Sorpresa and haggis work...because not any idjit can make one, import one or grow one.

You are aware that in the 1970s, Japan and Australia had rates of gun-ownership to rival our own...today, virtually-non-existent in both countries.

[alex_giger]

40. There are over 300 Million Guns in the U.S.

President Obama himself has driven sales of 100+ million guns during his presidency.

U.S. gun ownership dwarfs anything that Japan or Australia ever had. More importantly, gun ownership in Maine is very high and much valued in the State.

Not only that, with advances in 3-D Printing practically anyone can make a gun at home now.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22421185

The "horse is out of the barn" on this in terms of sheer numbers of guns, and the technology to make guns.

All I can say is, "good luck with your gun control".

[TipTok]

3. Who names their organization after a party drug?

[jpak]

4. Maine Moms that don't want criminals to get guns

yup

[Lurks Often]

5. It will almost certainly be voted down by Maine residents

especially as more details come out about the actual language of the bill.

[jpak]

6. I don't think so - people are sick and tired of criminals and felons getting guns

yup

[Lurks Often]

10. This isn't a topic on which you are objective or realistic about

so I rather doubt you are correct in your prediction.

[jpak]

12. I live in Maine - UBC has broad support

you betcha

[Lurks Often]

17. Doubt it

[jpak]

18. Poll after poll clearly indicates strong support for UBC nationwide

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/gun-control-polls_n_3327279.html

and As Maine Goes - so goes the nation.

and fuck the NRA

yup

[alex_giger]

23. Is the Pope Catholic? (i.e. Actual Poll Questions Asked)

Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 05:34 PM - Edit history (1)

This was the HUFFPOST / YOUGOV poll question that was asked:

Do you favor or oppose requiring background checks for anyone buying a gun at a gun show or online?

Another version of the poll question asks:

Should every person purchasing a gun be required to pass a criminal and public safety background check?

NOT:

Do you favor a handgun ban on 18-20 year olds?
Do you favor requiring background checks for all gun transfers?
Do you favor circumventing Maine law on handgun ownership and concealed carry age minimums?
Do you favor imposing additional burdens on already over-worked police, prosecutors, and judges?
Do you favor making criminals out of ordinary, hard-working, Mainers?

I could go on, but you get the point.

When presented with the consequences of this referendum, support melts away like the Maine spring snow.

In any case, since when are our fundamental civil rights up for a vote anyway?

[jpak]

24. My right not to be shot by douchebag with a gun Trumps felons rights to guns

so I vote "all of the above"

Gun nuts can suffah...

yup

[alex_giger]

27. The only "Vote" that counts is in November

It really does not matter what you or I think - it's the overall consensus of the Maine voters that will decide this.

Convicted violent felons do not have gun rights.

[jpak]

28. The NRA says so, and wants to make it easy for them to get guns

fuck 'em

[Chan790]

37. Let's see.

Yes! to the question asked by HuffPost.

but also:

Yes! to a ban on gun-ownership by 18-20 year olds. I actually support a ban on gun-ownership by anybody too young to rent a car...so that would be anybody under 25.

Yes! to a universal requirement of a background check on all gun transfers.

{The third question is moot as any undergraduate student of Con. Law knows...the later law nullifies or modifies the earlier law. So it's not circumventing anything...it is changing the status of handgun ownership laws in ME and nullifying the existing law on concealed-carry age-minimums. Ultimately, if Mainers want to do that...it's up to them.}

Refusal or inability to enforce or uphold the law is not grounds for failing to do so. If they can't or won't...they need to find new jobs.

I contest your assertion that people that would circumvent UBC are not already criminals.

I suggest you read the Heller opinion written by Antonin Scalia again, Alex...you'd see even he recognizes as a precedent-fact that the state has an right to restrict gun ownership from criminals and impose background-checks & gun control as necessary to maintain peace and public order where and when it can justify doing so. So, your assertion of a fundamental right being impeded has already gone to SCOTUS and the most-conservative pro-2nd-Amendment Justice in your lifetime wrote the decision that said this was and is legal. No fundamental right of yours is impeded by UBC...and that is a SCOTUS-decided fact-of-law. If there was any doubt of this, SCOTUS has declined to hear two challenges to CT's BC law (which in many ways goes much further) on the basis of Stare Decisis (That is...they said "No...we already covered this ground legally&quot and cited the majority opinion in Heller.

[Chan790]

32. Don't sweat it jpak...

they didn't believe us when it was a polling issue here in CT either until the CTGOP decided to campaign on it and watched as they were swept from office everywhere in a resounding wave of "Yes, more gun control; fuck the NRA and fuck the 2nd Amendment."

It really is hard for them to conceive that there are states and cities where a total gun ban would be wildly popular.

[jpak]

34. I'm not

The OP has spammed the same screed on DU twice and in at least 2 Maine papers.

Someone needs to put down The Precious and buy a clue...

[One_Life_To_Give]

19. Wouldn't it vary hugely by location?

I would be surprised to see much support for this away from the coast. Any breakdowns for East of the Pike vs West of the Pike or other geographic features?

[jpak]

20. The fact that is easily got enough signatures is proof enough for me

yup

[alex_giger]

21. Bloomberg Paid for the Universal Background Check Signatures

Last edited Sun Mar 6, 2016, 06:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Take a look at the 2015 Campaign Finance Report of Maine Moms Demand Action.

http://gunownersofmaine.org/resources/Documents/UBC/MaineMoms-BQC-201601.pdf

It makes it a lot easier when you have a Billionaire (i.e. "the 1 percent&quot footing the bills.

[jpak]

22. Good - Bloomberg is just fine with me

Hope he buys the votes to pass this too...

[Judi Lynn]

29. It would be a moral, conscientious investment for Bloomberg. Great thread. Yup! Yup. Yahoo.

[jpak]

30. Thanks!

[Chan790]

33. Your point is?

Look, it's quite simple Alex. If he has the money and clout to get it on the ballot...he probably has the money and clout to get it passed...and that's a-okay with me and a lot of other people.

Hell, if there was something I could do to help it pass...I'd be doing it.

[ileus]

41. Hopefully real citizens will slap down this astro turf group.