NEWS

GOME President Laura Whitcomb discusses closed-door meeting on GHRT: Listen Here

Maine PBN: Maine Democrats meet privately with ATF official as work continues on gun safety proposals

Portland Press Herald: Maine Democrats meet privately with ATF official as advocates work to build support for gun reforms

Bangor Daily News: Maine Democrats meet behind closed doors with ATF official

NRA-ILA: Bloomberg Tries to Buy Maine (Again), Secret ATF Meetings, and More

This is the timeline of events regarding the fabric of gun legislation in Maine in the last 5 months since the shooting in Lewiston.

After the shooting in Lewiston, before Robert Card was even found, anti-gun legislators were calling for restrictions on law abiding citizens.

We’ve had legislation submitted from voluntarily giving up your right to own a firearm, to redefining a machine gun, expanding background checks, and placing a 72 hour waiting period on receiving a firearm who has already passed a background check. There were also calls for amendments to the submitted bills to include a ban on “assault weapons”

Included in these requests are changes to current law surrounding protective custody warrants and weapons restrictions orders, commonly known as the yellow flag law which was submitted by Governor Mills.

These bills have been heard by the judiciary committee that is chaired by Senator Carney and Representative Moonen. They were assigned here despite it being very public knowledge that Senator Carney is not only a member of the gun safety caucus, but is a member of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, having received an award from them for her work to pass anti-gun rights laws in our state.

Going into the work session on March 13^th we had gotten word that there was not going to be a vote on that date. We firmly believe that this is because the chairs of the committee did not have the votes to pass these anti-rights pieces of legislation and were still working to get the support they needed. It was then made known to us that there was a movement in the House to amend the Governor’s bill to a full red flag law –which Commissioner of Public Safety, Michael Sauschuck went on record at the public hearing stating that Governor Mills’ intention was to strengthen the current yellow flag law and did not want to change Maine law to a “full red flag law”.

It is our opinion that if the Governor wanted to submit a different piece of legislation she would have done so.

Now we have heard the testimony during The Independent Commission to Investigate the Facts of the Tragedy in Lewiston. We have heard their conclusions: had current law been followed this tragedy could have been avoided. Following the findings,  The Bangor Daily news had headlines such as “Investigators hammer police for not taking Robert Card’s guns before Lewiston shooting”

This flies in the face of every single piece of gun legislation being pushed in Augusta and now anti-gun legislators are scrambling to get these bills passed. A representative from the ATF was slated to appear before the Judiciary Committee yesterday to give testimony on the NICS system, which stands for National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to help the committee make informed decisions on these bills. This representative then decided they could not speak on the record, but would speak to the individual Democrat and Republican caucuses. Crying foul, the Republicans on the committee said they didn’t want to participate in an illegal meeting that was held behind closed doors, away from the eyes and ears of the public. Not to mention there is no guarantee that the information provided in each separate meeting will be the same! 

One legislator informed me that when the information became available that the ATF cannot testify on the public record, asked for their contact information and was told that the only way a one-on-one meeting could be held was if it was scheduled by the chair of the committee and held at the time and place of the chair’s choosing via zoom.

Legally if three or more members of the same committee hold a meeting it has to be public, and yesterday at least five democrat members of the Judiciary Committee participated in a meeting behind closed doors. See the law here. 

Then, Senator Carney invited members of the Domestic Violence Coalition to do a special presentation before the committee, labeled an information session: firearms and Domestic violence, which was clearly anti-gun, then asked them to come back today for the second work session giving them FOUR opportunities to state their position before the committee. No such offer was made to any pro-gun group or individual. 

Senator Carney is blatantly obvious in her desire to push anti-gun legislation. She is the chair of the committee that oversees laws pertaining to government transparency and is acting as the gatekeeper of information. Furthermore, Senate President Jackson is doing absolutely nothing to reign this in. It is an abuse of power. It is unethical, and Maine citizens need to be aware of it.

Laura Whitcomb, President

LD 2238 (Waiting Periods) and LD 2224 (Background Checks)

It is important to stay informed regarding the strategies used by anti-rights groups that are used to twist facts and information to change the fabric of gun ownership in Maine. See Below.

The Maine People's Alliance has issued talking points, read them here. 

MAJOR Action Alert: Updates and New Info

Good afternoon everyone!

We saw a lot of great support for Speaker Talbot-Ross’ mental health bill yesterday, and we are expecting much more for the Bump Stock Ban Amendment and Voluntary Waiver of Firearms bills today. We also had a great turnout for our testimony training last night and hope to see all of you at the State House on Thursday!

With only two days left before the important public hearings set for March 7, we are asking all of our supporters to SIGN UP to give testimony in support of mandatory background checks and 72 hour waiting periods for firearm sales, plus advocating for the addition of a real extreme risk protection order. Please feel free to bring anyone who would be interested in helping advance this vital public safety legislation—whether they plan to testify or simply to stand in the halls and be counted as a supporter.

Anyone planning to give in-person testimony should plan to arrive at the State House by 8:30 AM to get signed up. MGSC staffers will be on hand to direct you to where you need to go. Please note that testimony for both bills being heard on Thursday will be combined; so whether you plan to testify for one or both bills, there will be a time limit of two minutes total for your presentation, and you will only have the opportunity to speak once.

If you would like digital copies of our talking points for these bills to help prepare your testimony, please contact Ben Mitchell at benjamin.s.mitchell91@gmail.com.

We will also hold “office hours” today (Tuesday, March 5) and tomorrow (Wednesday, March 6) for anyone who has questions or would like help in preparing their testimony for Thursday’s bills. Please contact Ben Mitchell at benjamin.s.mitchell91@gmail.com if you would like to attend this Zoom “office hours,” and he will send you the Zoom link.

Thursday, March 7 at 11:30 am: Show Up and Testify for Background Checks and a real Extreme Risk Protection Order (Rotundo/Mills, LD 2224) and 72 Hour Waiting Periods (Rotundo, LD 2238)

Sign Up Here to Testify (or Show Up) on March 7

I hope to see you all at the State House on Thursday! As always, THANK YOU for Showing Up for Gun Safety!

Sincerely,

Nacole Palmer, Executive Director

Maine Gun Safety Coalition

LD 2237, An Act to Strengthen Public Safety, Health and Well-being by Expanding Services and Coordinating Violence Prevention Resources

LD 2086, An Act to Amend the Law Governing the Disposition of Forfeited Firearms (Sen. Carney) (With Amendment to change the definition of Machine Gun
LD 2119, An Act to Support Suicide Prevention by Allowing the Voluntary Waiver of Firearm Rights (Rep. Doudera)

Anti-Gun Politicians Try to Sneak in Dangerous Amendments

In a bill called "An Act to Amend the Law Governing the Disposition of Forfeited Firearms" , anti-gun politicians have snuck in an amendment that would seek to change the definition of Machine Guns to include many common modifications to semi-automatic firearms. 

This is just one step away from being amended in a later session to completely remove semi-automatic firearms from law-abiding citizens.

The Maine Gun Safety Coalition is even touting this change as an "assault weapons ban". 

This language is not available on the state's website for the public to see.  The language can be found here:

Proposed Machine Gun Definition Change

Sponsored by Senator CARNEY of Cumberland and Cosponsored by Representative CLOUTIER of Lewiston and Senators: BEEBE-CENTER of Knox, ROTUNDO of Androscoggin, Representatives: CRAVEN of Lewiston, DOUDERA of Camden, LEE of Auburn, MOONEN of Portland, Speaker TALBOT ROSS of Portland, ZAGER of Portland.

Democrat Members of Maine State House of Representatives send letter to Kittery Trading Post and Cabela’s/Bass Pro Shops encouraging them to stop selling semi-automatic rifles in Maine

Click here to see one of the letters. We are working on a petition to show our support for these businesses, information on that will be coming out soon.

We find these letters to be, frankly, appalling. Calling on businesses to stop selling legal firearms using emotional pleas and openly lying is a repulsive use of their positions as representatives of the people of Maine. Please read the list of Representatives that signed these letters and if your representative is on the list-reach out to them and express your dissatisfaction at their agreement to put their names on these letters.

Waiting Periods Would NOT Have Prevented Lewiston

Proponents of gun control are pushing an antiquated proposal to institute a 3-day waiting period between the purchase and final transfer of a firearm.

What is a waiting period?

Waiting periods are arbitrary impositions with no effect on crime or suicide, introduce no additional investigative avenues, and only burden law-abiding gun owners without changing how or when criminals obtain firearms.

MYTH: Waiting periods allow for more in-depth background checks.

FACT: NO, waiting periods do NOT change the background check process; no additional investigative measures are taken no matter how long of a waiting period is imposed. The FBI still runs the EXACT SAME background check that they run now, without a waiting period. Most background checks are resolved instantly, but investigations can currently last up to 90 days.

MYTH: Waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides, and mass shootings.

FACT: There is NO evidence that waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides, or mass shootings. No studies that identify causal effects have been identified by any of the independent literature reviews conducted since 2004.

The average time-to-crime for firearms traced by the BATFE in 2018 was nearly 9 years1, so the idea that guns are often used in crimes of passion or impulsive actions right after purchase is NOT supported by anything other than anecdotal evidence.

Only law-abiding individuals will be impacted by waiting periods. Criminals get firearms from illegal sources such as straw purchases, on the black market, or theft. They don’t buy their guns at gun shops.2

MYTH: We need more gun laws.

FACT: There are already too few prosecutions of prohibited persons who attempt to buy a firearm from a dealer. Out of 112,090 total federal denials in 2017, there were only 12 prosecutions.

MYTH: Waiting periods are designed to reduce suicide.

FACT: NO. The waiting period mandated by the Brady Act of 1993 was only in effect until the National Instant Check System came online in 1998.

Not to mention, TWO THIRDS of gun owners own more than one firearm.3  A waiting period could not possibly affect those purchasing an additional firearm. First-time buyers seeking a firearm for self-defense would be affected by a waiting period that limits their ability to safeguard themselves and their loved ones.

There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that waiting periods affect suicide, homicide, or mass shootings.4

CONCLUSION: A waiting period would not have stopped the tragedy in Lewiston, and it’s an arbitrary measure that is not based in reality. It does nothing to improve the background check system, assess the mental health of the purchaser, or prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals. In fact, it imposes a burden on law-abiding individuals who want to obtain a firearm for personal protection.

Months before the tragedy in Lewiston, Robert Card was showing signs of paranoia. On May 3, 2023, a Citizen Assist complaint originating from a local public school address was logged with the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Office.

In July 2023, Card was admitted to a mental health facility in New York and spent 14 days in that hospital. It is well-documented that Card acted violently and even assaulted a fellow soldier.

In September 2023, weeks before the shooting, police received a request from the Maine National Guard to do a welfare check on Robert Card.

The reality of this tragedy is that there were signs for a year leading up to the shooting that Card was violent. He made threats and acted violently. Prior to the shooting, Card allegedly committed several serious crimes but he was not charged. Why not? Repeatedly, Card showed serious signs of danger, and his behavior was largely ignored.

A reasonable person can conclude: a 72-hour waiting period would not have prevented this tragedy from occurring, especially since Robert Card lawfully owned firearms for years.

Instead, a 72-hour waiting period would prevent every law-abiding individual who wants to purchase a firearm for self-protection from obtaining one.

The ability to protect yourself and your loved ones has never been more important. It is well documented that police response times are rising across the country, and in Maine, for a variety of factors.

If a violent intruder breaks into a home, a 72-hour waiting period could be the difference between life and death.

Printable PDF with Citations

The Truth Behind “Assault Weapons Bans”

What is an “assault weapon”?

There is no standard definition of an “assault weapon” because it is a fictitious political term. The term has been used to describe semi-automatic firearms that look threatening to those who do not understand the difference between “military-grade” firearms and civilian-owned firearms.

Contrary to what the gun control proponents would have you believe, “AR” does not mean “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.” The AR in AR-15 stands for ArmaLite, the company that developed the platform in the 1950’s. (Yes, this platform has been around for decades).

A 1997 article in the Stanford Law and Policy Review emphasizes that the term assault weapon “did not exist in the lexicon of firearms” before 1989, when it was “developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance.” This is further confirmed by Deputy Associate Director of the BATF Edward D. Conroy’s testimony to Congress regarding the Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989. There Conroy repeatedly emphasized that “assault weapons” where characterized merely by there “appearance,” and the proposed definition of “assault weapon” that BATF had at the time was based on the firearm being “cosmetically similar” to other fully-automatic firearms. 

MYTH: Assault weapons bans will reduce violent crime.

FACT: The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004 found that the ban had no impact on crime, in part because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of gun murders.” Rifles of any type are used in only two percent of murders. Subsequent research conducted by the RAND Corporation found no conclusive evidence that banning “assault weapons” or “large” capacity magazines has an effect on mass shootings or violent crime.

            Murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal ban was in effect.

MYTH: There is no “need” for civilians to own AR-15’s.

FACT: Americans own nearly 25 million AR and AK platform firearms. AR-15s are the most commonly used rifles in marksmanship competitions, training, and home defense.

            Total violent crime and murder has fallen to near historic lows, while ownership of the firearms and magazines that gun control supporters want banned has risen to all-time highs.

            AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles are not the fully-automatic, military-grade firearms they are often claimed to be by gun control supporters and the media.

            Ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are standard equipment for many handguns and rifles that Americans keep for self-defense.

MYTH: “Assault weapons” are used in most mass shootings.

FACT: Gun control supporters are wrong to claim that “assault weapons” are used in most mass shootings. While the media focus on this false narrative, mass killings have been committed with firearms of all types, and without firearms of any type.

MYTH: More guns leads to more violent crime.

FACT: From 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high, to 2017, the nation’s total violent crime rate decreased 47 percent, including a 34 percent decrease in the murder rate. Meanwhile, Americans bought about 200 million new firearms, including more than eighteen million AR-15s, and so many tens of millions of “large” handgun and rifle magazines that it seems pointless to attempt a count.

MYTH: Assault Weapons Bans Withstand Constitutional Muster.

FACT: Firearms that gun control supporters call “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines that they call “large” are among the arms protected by the Second Amendment. Because they’re among the arms that are most useful for the entire range of defensive purposes, they’re “in common use” for defensive purposes, a standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Heller.

Just last year, the Supreme Court remanded two cases challenging so-called large capacity magazine bans out of New Jersey (Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Grewal 2022) and California (Duncan v. Bonta 2022) for further proceedings because the Third and Ninth Circuit courts of appeals applied the wrong test in upholding the bans.

SINCE THEN:

-    Federal judge in CA ruled that the magazine ban was unconstitutional and enjoined it from being enforce (Duncan v. Bonta 2023).

-    Likewise, California’s ban on so-called assault weapons was found to be unconstitutional and enjoined (Miller v. Bonta 2023).

-    A federal judge in Illinois did the same thing to the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines earlier this year (Barnett v. Raoul).

MYTH: We must ban “assault weapons” because they are often used in violent crime.

FACT: According to the 2019 Crime in the United States report (based on FBI murder statistics), handguns were responsible for nearly half of all homicides in the US in 2019. Even hands, fists and feet were used twice as often as any kind of rifle to commit murder. AR-15’s are used in a tiny percentage of crimes.

Conclusion: We don’t blame law-abiding individuals for violent crime in any other circumstance. Surely it would be absurd to ban SUV’s because someone drove an SUV drunk and killed another driver. The same is true here. Why are we penalizing every law-abiding gun owner for the actions of a disturbed individual?

Printable PDF with Citations

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS & THE ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM

Universal background check proposals often impose background checks on all transfers of firearms, with varying exceptions. However, without a gun registry, it’s virtually impossible to enforce the universal background check system.

MYTH: There are “gun show” and “online sales” loopholes that allow criminals to obtain firearms.

FACT: Bureau of justice statistics show that 77% of criminals in state prison for firearm crimes get firearms through theft, on the black market, from a drug dealer or “on the street, or from family members and friends. Less than 1% get firearms at “gun shows.”

ATF has said that nearly half of all illegally trafficked firearms originate with “straw” purchasers who buy guns for criminals. This is ALREADY ILLEGAL.

All federal dealers - regardless of location (gun show, gun shop, online) have to run a background check before selling or transferring a firearm to a person who is not a dealer. This INCLUDES online sales.

MYTH: Background checks will reduce mass shootings.

FACT: Most mass shooters pass background checks to acquire firearms. Robert Card passed numerous background checks to obtain his firearms. In fact, Robert Card was blocked from buying a suppressor months before the shooting because he self-reported that he was in a mental health facility on the form that the dealer is required to review.

IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT SUPRESSORS:

Purchasing a suppressor is not like purchasing a firearm.

Suppressors need to be registered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. You need to be approved to purchase and registered as an owner of a suppressor prior to taking possession of it.

The process: Fill out required BATF forms, get fingerprints done and photographs. Submit the paperwork and pay the $200 transfer/registration fee (tax stamp). When you are approved, the dealer is authorized to transfer the suppressor to the individual WITH ANOTHER BACKGROUND CHECK.

Robert Card not only passed a NICS background check, but he also successfully obtained a tax stamp ($200 registration fee). The only reason he was denied the suppressor was because he self-reported his stay in the mental health facility.

SO - WHAT DOES FEDERAL LAW ALREADY DO?

-     Requires firearms dealers, manufacturers, and importers to initiative background checks on any non-dealer who wants to purchase a firearm.

-     Federal law prohibits possession by 9 categories of prohibited persons: [felons, fugitives, persons with qualifying mental health histories, illegal drug users and addicts, illegal aliens, people dishonorably discharged,  people who have renounced US citizenship, persons convicted of DV misdemeanors, and people under certain types of DV restraining orders].

Can you advertise a firearm on the internet?

Yes, but the following still applies:

-     Federal law prohibits the transfer of a firearm to anyone known or believed to be prohibited.

-     Federal law prohibits a non-dealer from acquiring a handgun outside his state of residence and prohibits a non-dealer from acquiring a rifle or shotgun from a non-dealer outside his state of residence.

-     Federal law prohibits anyone from transferring a handgun to a non-dealer who resides in another state (with rare exceptions), and prohibits a non-dealer from transferring a firearm to a non-licensee who resides in another state.

-     Federal law prohibits the acquisition of a firearm on behalf of a person who is prohibited from possessing firearms.

-     Federal law prohibits anyone from providing a handgun to a juvenile (person under age 18), and prohibits juveniles from possessing handguns, with limited exceptions.

If background checks are instant, why are universal background checks such a big deal?

Because it’s not about a background check. It’s about establishing a gun registry which is prohibited by state and federal law.

Universal background checks are unenforceable without a gun registry because you count on people to “do the right thing.” Of course, law-abiding individuals will. However, criminals will not - we already know that.

In 2013, the Obama Department of Justice acknowledged that requiring universal background checks “depends on… requiring gun registration.”

Printable PDF with Citations