ME 2A ballot expansion of universal background checks and transfers?

[HPmatt]

Like my post on NV - I joined emails for local DALLAS TX Moms against Guns. Got this notice today asking me to help call about ballot initiative in NV - but they also reference ME.

You guys aware of this initiative? Local NRA notifying ME gun owners about the ballot threat?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grundi]

NO on 3!!!

Like my post on NV - I joined emails for local DALLAS TX Moms against Guns. Got this notice today asking me to help call about ballot initiative in NV - but they also reference ME.

You guys aware of this initiative? Local NRA notifying ME gun owners about the ballot threat?

This is question 3 on our 2016 ballots and I'm seeing "NO on 3" signs popping up!!! It's flat out gun control and force registry!!! There's a growing effort to stop this and now's the time to push back on it.

 

[KBCraig]

Anything can happen in Maine -- constitutional carry followed by a ban on private transfers is certainly possible.

You have decriminalization of marijuana, a lax medical marijuana law (both good things), and a governor who calls for shooting all drug dealers on sight.

Ain't northern New England fun? :banana:

 

[davidmcbeth]

Anything can happen in Maine -- constitutional carry followed by a ban on private transfers is certainly possible.

You have decriminalization of marijuana, a lax medical marijuana law (both good things), and a governor who calls for shooting all drug dealers on sight.

Ain't northern New England fun? :banana:

Transactions of personal property? They cannot ban that...your property, do what you want with it.

 

[Grundi]

Anything can happen in Maine -- constitutional carry followed by a ban on private transfers is certainly possible.

You have decriminalization of marijuana, a lax medical marijuana law (both good things), and a governor who calls for shooting all drug dealers on sight.

Ain't northern New England fun? :banana:

It's a veritable wonderland...

We have a toothless castle doctrine (duty to retreat, but if you "feel" your life's in danger, then defend yourself, but be ready to prove it) yet if the perp is "attempting" to commit arson, shoot 'em on site (Title 17-A, 104). I'm sure a saw a lighter app on their iPhone...

Must have firearm background checks, well, because you wouldn't understand...but voter id is out of the question, well, because you wouldn't understand that either. :uhoh:

Transactions of personal property? They cannot ban that...your property, do what you want with it.

Actually, they can do whatever they want, until it's challenged in court. However, this isn't about property rights or closing loopholes or making much more illegaler to sell firearms to disallowed persons; this is about gun control and the restriction of the RKBA and the "free exercise thereof". Without a gun registry, how do these panty-wastes know who owns what, and who bought from whom? Your word against mine, hearsay, inadmissible. They don't want to stop there, it's a stepping stone law to a gun registry and then eventual confiscation.

 

[HPmatt]

Got this note today...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[utbagpiper]

Don't let the antis set the terms of the debate

When we let the gun grabbers set the terms of the debate, we have already lost a lot of ground.

This is not about "universal background checks." This is about "Universal Gun Registration."

There was never a ban on "assault weapons." Rather, there was a ban on "scary looking guns" or on "ranch guns".

The left understands the importance of words. Orwell understood the danger when he wrote of NewSpeak in his novel "1984." Words and language are not just how we communicate, but how we think. Those who lack the language to describe complex ideas, lack the ability to cogently think about those ideas.

The left is very good at picking short, concise, easy terms and phrases to cast our rights in a negative light. It is tempting to fall into the trap of using their words. We should avoid doing so.

Even the term "gun rights" is loaded. Guns have don't rights. People do. And it isn't nearly so much about a right to carry a gun as it is about "the right to an effective self defense."

I get it. "The right to an effective self defense" doesn't roll off the tongue or keyboard nearly as nicely as does "gun rights" or even "RKBA". But which one do we want rolling around in the head of the fence sitter as he considers on the subject of the 2nd amendment? He may not much care about guns. He might even emotionally associate guns with all kinds of negative things like crime. But does he (or especially she) relate differently to "the right to an effective self-defense" or the "right to effectively defend myself, my family, and our home."

Charles

 

[Grapeshot]

RDAP, R2DP = Right to Defend And Protect.

 

[Grundi]

Got this note today...

The left is very good at ...

My apologies to both @HPmatt and @utbagpiper for chopping up your posts to use for my own purposes...

The left is very good at...lying and deception. There, I fixed it for you.

In Maine, we do not have a gun violence issue. Holding consistent for the past 10 years, suicides by firearms "out-gun" homicides by 9:1...that's 9:1. Even the national average is 3:1. Everytown, Bloomberg, and everyone else have spent millions to paint a picture that Maine has an epidemic of criminals wandering about from firearm bazaar to open field gun suppliers. What would make a huge difference is taking that money and spending it wisely on those with have mental and depression issues and prevent them from committing suicide. Suicide prevention would drive down both the Maine death rate and the National death rate. If you removed the suicide component from the "gun violence" statistics, you may find that there isn't a problem at all (except maybe in those metro areas where these same idiots are empowering the very criminals that they purport to stop by taking away the law-abiding citizen's means to defend themselves against said criminals)

 

[utbagpiper]

My apologies to both @HPmatt and @utbagpiper for chopping up your posts to use for my own purposes...

The left is very good at...lying and deception. There, I fixed it for you.

In Maine, we do not have a gun violence issue. Holding consistent for the past 10 years, suicides by firearms "out-gun" homicides by 9:1...that's 9:1. ... If you removed the suicide component from the "gun violence" statistics, you may find that there isn't a problem at all (except maybe in those metro areas where these same idiots are empowering the very criminals that they purport to stop by taking away the law-abiding citizen's means to defend themselves against said criminals)

I absolutely agree.

The most effective component of their lying is their choice of words and catch phrases.

If they claimed gun owners were 3-eyed monsters who drank the blood of children, almost nobody would believe them. It isn't the blatant lie, but the subtle lie that is often most powerful and hard to counter.

Notice the use of "Pro-Choice" to describe what is really a "Pro-Legalized-Elective-Abortion" position.

How many who are "Pro-Choice" on abortion are actually "Pro-Choice" when it comes to whether or not a woman should be able to carry a gun in public to avoid the very rape that results in the 2% of abortions that are used to justify the need for the other 96% to remain legal (2% for valid health reasons)? How many are "Pro-Choice" about whether to buy health insurance, much less allowing the free market to actually provide health services without undue government intervention? But the "Pro-Choice" label works great even as they try to stick opponents with the label of "Anti-Choice". Those who oppose elective abortion prudently strive for the label of "Pro-Life" rather than "Anti-Choice".

Notice that the left now couches assisted suicide and even euthanasia in terms of "Death with Dignity".

Regardless of where one stands on abortion or assisted suicide/euthanasia, there lessons to be learned there.

"Assault rifle" as used politically is almost always a lie.

As you point out, "Gun Violence" is usually a lie.

For both reasons of honesty, integrity, and political advantage, we should not repeat the lies of the gun grabbers.

If we have to use the term "Universal Background Checks" for context, it should always be tied directly to "Universal Gun Registration".

Charles

 

[Grundi]

I absolutely agree.

The most effective component of their lying is their choice of words and catch phrases.

If they claimed gun owners were 3-eyed monsters who drank the blood of children, almost nobody would believe them. It isn't the blatant lie, but the subtle lie that is often most powerful and hard to counter.

Notice the use of "Pro-Choice" to describe what is really a "Pro-Legalized-Elective-Abortion" position.

How many who are "Pro-Choice" on abortion are actually "Pro-Choice" when it comes to whether or not a woman should be able to carry a gun in public to avoid the very rape that results in the 2% of abortions that are used to justify the need for the other 96% to remain legal (2% for valid health reasons)? How many are "Pro-Choice" about whether to buy health insurance, much less allowing the free market to actually provide health services without undue government intervention? But the "Pro-Choice" label works great even as they try to stick opponents with the label of "Anti-Choice". Those who oppose elective abortion prudently strive for the label of "Pro-Life" rather than "Anti-Choice".

Notice that the left now couches assisted suicide and even euthanasia in terms of "Death with Dignity".

Regardless of where one stands on abortion or assisted suicide/euthanasia, there lessons to be learned there.

"Assault rifle" as used politically is almost always a lie.

As you point out, "Gun Violence" is usually a lie.

For both reasons of honesty, integrity, and political advantage, we should not repeat the lies of the gun grabbers.

If we have to use the term "Universal Background Checks" for context, it should always be tied directly to "Universal Gun Registration".

Charles

So what you're really saying is that the anti-gun crowd is a cold and hateful bunch, who would deny the most vulnerable and hurting among us their compassionate choice do die with dignity?

 

[HPmatt]

No problem at all - mainly wanted to get word out that up in the woods you have some pine bark beetles on the loose (not that Texas doesn't too in our Piney Woods - and Austin)...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[utbagpiper]

So what you're really saying is that the anti-gun crowd is a cold and hateful bunch, who would deny the most vulnerable and hurting among us their compassionate choice do die with dignity?

I'd actually prefer to avoid discussing assisted suicide, abortion, the definition of marriage, or other such non-RKBA issues here, except to see what lessons might be learned about successful messaging and politicking.

I don't suppose that being pro-self-defense requires any particular position on any of these highly divisive issues. But regardless of where one stands on any of them, there are clearly lessons to be learned that might be used to defend and advance our rights to an effective self defense. Proper messaging is one of the key lessons we can learn and should then make use of.

"Universal Background Checks" == Universal Gun Registration with everything that permits and requires.

Charles

 

[Grundi]

I'd actually prefer to avoid discussing assisted suicide, abortion, the definition of marriage, or other such non-RKBA issues here, except to see what lessons might be learned about successful messaging and politicking.

I don't suppose that being pro-self-defense requires any particular position on any of these highly divisive issues. But regardless of where one stands on any of them, there are clearly lessons to be learned that might be used to defend and advance our rights to an effective self defense. Proper messaging is one of the key lessons we can learn and should then make use of.

"Universal Background Checks" == Universal Gun Registration with everything that permits and requires.

Charles

I apologize. I got caught up in the anti's twisting of the stats and their raging hypocrisy. They (the anti-2A crowd) are masters at framing the message through carefully selected phrases.

And I agree with you that the clear intention of universal background checks is their tool to create the universal gun registry.

When I look at the stats being referenced by those proponents of the universal background check, I notice that one of the key arguments, specific for this Maine ballot question, centers around the ATF's report concerning their tracing of firearms to the most recent FFL dealer to sell the firearm. The report includes statistics about the number of firearms that "come from Maine" and are "used by criminals" in other states (and also includes what city or town the FFL dealer is located in). However, private sales of firearms can't be traced and so this "loophole" must be closed in order to find out who is supplying firearms to the criminals.

To me, what's being missed is that it feels like the current background check system is already establishing a gun registry and the ATF is using it in this manner. And that universal background checks are being pushed to significantly enlarge the scope of an already existing gun registry.

 

[utbagpiper]

.... However, private sales of firearms can't be traced and so this "loophole" must be closed in order to find out who is supplying firearms to the criminals.

To me, what's being missed is that it feels like the current background check system is already establishing a gun registry and the ATF is using it in this manner. And that universal background checks are being pushed to significantly enlarge the scope of an already existing gun registry.

Yup.

When the news reports that "x% of guns used in big city crime were traced to neighboring State/Nation with lax gun laws" what the study really said was "x% of the guns that could be traced were traced to...". Between private sales (probably a small number of guns used in crimes) and black market guns (probably the bulk of guns used in crimes), most guns used in crimes can't be traced. No shocker there. Guns that can be traced were purchased legally, but law abiding persons. Not many of those engage in serious crimes.

The BATFE (we should always use their full name because in DC, three letter agencies have more power than 4 or 5 letter agencies; hence the reason the BATFE likes to present themselves as the "ATF". We shouldn't use their dishonest term.) has consistently refused to destroy records they are supposed to destroy so as to not be able to create a gun registry. Forcing all sales through a background check enables a registry. Indeed, a registry is required to determine whether a gun was transferred legally or not...at least for 50 years or so.

After all, how do you prove I didn't get my gun legally unless you can prove that someone else owned it last year and thus we were required to go through a background check before transferring it to me. Hence the reason the anti's object to even the inheritance loop hole. So long as I can claim I obtained my gun legally ("Dad had a huge collection he left to me...") even though it shows on no registration, they can't prosecute me effectively and they can't force all the unregistered guns into a registry.

And we all know there is only one real reason to register privately owned guns. That reason is not to solve murders. As already discussed, current evidence shows that very few legally purchased guns are used in crimes. That will remain true even if a universal registration scheme is imposed. So the only real reason to register guns is to be prepared to confiscate them. That is what happened in NYC with the Sullivan act. It is what happened in Canada, England, and Australia. It is what Hitler did.

We must not repeat that part of history here.

Charles

 

[davidmcbeth]

I apologize. I got caught up in the anti's twisting of the stats and their raging hypocrisy. They (the anti-2A crowd) are masters at framing the message through carefully selected phrases.

And I agree with you that the clear intention of universal background checks is their tool to create the universal gun registry.

When I look at the stats being referenced by those proponents of the universal background check, I notice that one of the key arguments, specific for this Maine ballot question, centers around the ATF's report concerning their tracing of firearms to the most recent FFL dealer to sell the firearm. The report includes statistics about the number of firearms that "come from Maine" and are "used by criminals" in other states (and also includes what city or town the FFL dealer is located in). However, private sales of firearms can't be traced and so this "loophole" must be closed in order to find out who is supplying firearms to the criminals.

To me, what's being missed is that it feels like the current background check system is already establishing a gun registry and the ATF is using it in this manner. And that universal background checks are being pushed to significantly enlarge the scope of an already existing gun registry.

Gun ownership should not be traceable at all. What business is it of the .govs to know who owns what or to be able to easily determine this?

Live in fear .govs is my motto.

As a dealer I never provided this info to any .gov.

 

[Grundi]

Still Early, But...

I know it's still early yet, but here's the view from Central Maine - I'm starting to see more and more "Vote No on 3" lawn signs and bumper stickers popping up. Have not seen any for the other side. While talking to my neighbor as we were pumping gas, 2 random strangers joined the conversation and said that they were Voting No on 3. One of them was carrying.

 

[KBCraig]

I know it's still early yet, but here's the view from Central Maine - I'm starting to see more and more "Vote No on 3" lawn signs and bumper stickers popping up. Have not seen any for the other side. While talking to my neighbor as we were pumping gas, 2 random strangers joined the conversation and said that they were Voting No on 3. One of them was carrying.

I live in NH, but I went to western Maine (Paris, Norway, Oxford) last weekend on an errand. That's a very rural area, and there were "No on 3" signs everywhere. Even in Norway's artsy-fartsy main street district.

I didn't see any signs on any of the other ballot questions, just 3.

 

[HPmatt]

From the Guardian - leaves impression Bloomberg effort might win w a statistical sleight of hand. Nice time interviewing Maine Sportsman assn, GOA local (w 2nd guy taping Guardian to ensure no journo-Kouric-crap), then talks to consultant running campaign in Portland. Finally interviews NRA-ILA VP about why NRA is not wasting all their $ on Maine race, vs wasting it on Trump.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ne-hillary-clinton-nra?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KBCraig]

I'd like to see 1 pass.