Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, do you want every guy who beats his wife or his little brother or whatever to spend the rest of their life in prison? On my dime? Every mentally ill individual who thinks she is Joan of Arc needs to be institutionalized for the rest of her life? On my dime? That's what you're proposing.This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.
"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.
Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.
Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.
I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.
Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.
Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”
Question 3 fixes this.
In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.
It’s indisputable that background checks work.
This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.
I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.
Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.
No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.
I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.
As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.
Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."
Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Wrong. The best way to protect the people is to lock up violent criminals instead of releasing them into the public.
If a citizen is considered "too dangerous" to own a gun, why isn't he locked up?
Does the FACT that 90% approve it make you think of anything? Like, ummmm, "majority rules"?The fallacy surfaces when you argue that we should do something because 90% approve of it.It's not a fallacy. It is a fact.Oh look - an argumentum ad populum fallacyWhat you are forgetting is that 90% of the American populace wants better background checks.
Well, do you want every guy who beats his wife or his little brother or whatever to spend the rest of their life in prison? On my dime? Every mentally ill individual who thinks she is Joan of Arc needs to be institutionalized for the rest of her life? On my dime? That's what you're proposing.This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.
"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.
Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.
Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.
I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.
Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.
Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”
Question 3 fixes this.
In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.
It’s indisputable that background checks work.
This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.
I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.
Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.
No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.
I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.
As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.
Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."
Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Wrong. The best way to protect the people is to lock up violent criminals instead of releasing them into the public.
If a citizen is considered "too dangerous" to own a gun, why isn't he locked up?
Guy, there HAD been a restraining order against him, but it was obviously not in effect if he was waiting to pick up his kids from school and was living with his wife. Those orders do get lifted, you know. As for being an ex-felon, of course that's true. The article didn't even attempt to say it would prevent every act of gun violence. It was specific and modest in the scope of its claims.Well, do you want every guy who beats his wife or his little brother or whatever to spend the rest of their life in prison? On my dime? Every mentally ill individual who thinks she is Joan of Arc needs to be institutionalized for the rest of her life? On my dime? That's what you're proposing.This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.
"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.
Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.
Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.
I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.
Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.
Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”
Question 3 fixes this.
In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.
It’s indisputable that background checks work.
This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.
I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.
Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.
No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.
I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.
As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.
Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."
Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Wrong. The best way to protect the people is to lock up violent criminals instead of releasing them into the public.
If a citizen is considered "too dangerous" to own a gun, why isn't he locked up?
again.....the guy shot in Charlotte, North Carolina.......had a domestic violence restraining order against him, meaning he could not legally get a gun....he was also a convicted felon...meaning he could not get a gun legally......and he had an illegal gun on him, which he bought from a burglar....neither one of them having gone through a background check to get that gun....
So again....you have no clue what you are talking about...
Yes. It's beautiful, including the electoral college which will hopefully prevent the Orange Wonder from becoming our leader.Does the FACT that 90% approve it make you think of anything? Like, ummmm, "majority rules"?The fallacy surfaces when you argue that we should do something because 90% approve of it.It's not a fallacy. It is a fact.Oh look - an argumentum ad populum fallacyWhat you are forgetting is that 90% of the American populace wants better background checks.
The beautiful part of our system of government is that the majority does not always rule - by design.
Missed the point, eh?Yes. It's beautiful, including the electoral college which will hopefully prevent the Orange Wonder from becoming our leader.Does the FACT that 90% approve it make you think of anything? Like, ummmm, "majority rules"?The fallacy surfaces when you argue that we should do something because 90% approve of it.It's not a fallacy. It is a fact.Oh look - an argumentum ad populum fallacy
The beautiful part of our system of government is that the majority does not always rule - by design.
Not at all.Missed the point, eh?Yes. It's beautiful, including the electoral college which will hopefully prevent the Orange Wonder from becoming our leader.Does the FACT that 90% approve it make you think of anything? Like, ummmm, "majority rules"?The fallacy surfaces when you argue that we should do something because 90% approve of it.It's not a fallacy. It is a fact.
The beautiful part of our system of government is that the majority does not always rule - by design.
Then why do you think your "fact" regarding "90% of the people" has any meaning?Not at all.Missed the point, eh?Yes. It's beautiful, including the electoral college which will hopefully prevent the Orange Wonder from becoming our leader.Does the FACT that 90% approve it make you think of anything? Like, ummmm, "majority rules"?The fallacy surfaces when you argue that we should do something because 90% approve of it.
The beautiful part of our system of government is that the majority does not always rule - by design.
Then why do you think your "fact" regarding "90% of the people" has any meaning?Not at all.Missed the point, eh?Yes. It's beautiful, including the electoral college which will hopefully prevent the Orange Wonder from becoming our leader.Does the FACT that 90% approve it make you think of anything? Like, ummmm, "majority rules"?
The beautiful part of our system of government is that the majority does not always rule - by design.
Good to see you understand your "fact" regarding "90% of the people" has no meaning.If that's all ya got, pest, you're proving you got nothin....Then why do you think your "fact" regarding "90% of the people" has any meaning?Not at all.Missed the point, eh?Yes. It's beautiful, including the electoral college which will hopefully prevent the Orange Wonder from becoming our leader.
The beautiful part of our system of government is that the majority does not always rule - by design.
Guy, there HAD been a restraining order against him, but it was obviously not in effect if he was waiting to pick up his kids from school and was living with his wife. Those orders do get lifted, you know. As for being an ex-felon, of course that's true. The article didn't even attempt to say it would prevent every act of gun violence. It was specific and modest in the scope of its claims.Well, do you want every guy who beats his wife or his little brother or whatever to spend the rest of their life in prison? On my dime? Every mentally ill individual who thinks she is Joan of Arc needs to be institutionalized for the rest of her life? On my dime? That's what you're proposing.This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.
"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.
Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.
Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.
I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.
Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.
Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”
Question 3 fixes this.
In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.
It’s indisputable that background checks work.
This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.
I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.
Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.
No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.
I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.
As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.
Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."
Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Wrong. The best way to protect the people is to lock up violent criminals instead of releasing them into the public.
If a citizen is considered "too dangerous" to own a gun, why isn't he locked up?
again.....the guy shot in Charlotte, North Carolina.......had a domestic violence restraining order against him, meaning he could not legally get a gun....he was also a convicted felon...meaning he could not get a gun legally......and he had an illegal gun on him, which he bought from a burglar....neither one of them having gone through a background check to get that gun....
So again....you have no clue what you are talking about...
This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.
"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.
Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.
Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.
I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.
Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.
Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”
Question 3 fixes this.
In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.
It’s indisputable that background checks work.
This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.
I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.
Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.
No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.
I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.
As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.
Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."
Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Not an enforceable law.There is nothing wrong with universal background checks which are the first line of resistance preventing the wrong people from getting a gun. If you advocate law abiding, responsible people owning guns, you should back this law 100%.Ah, yes. Australia, my dream scape. You think that will actually happen here? If nothing happened after Newtown, it never will. As a matter of fact, instead of being revolted by the gun violence, people went out and bought MORE and MORE guns.
We are one sick bunch of motherfuckers, imo.
wrong.....they can stack the Supreme Court now.....
Moron....there were 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s...there are now 357 million guns in private hands and up to 2015 (the year of Ferguson and black lies matter) the gun murder rate went down 49%......
Milions of Americans use guns and carry guns every day...in fact, Americans are the most responsible gun owners in the world....so please...think before you post....
Fine by me.Well, do you want every guy who beats his wife or his little brother or whatever to spend the rest of their life in prison? On my dime? Every mentally ill individual who thinks she is Joan of Arc needs to be institutionalized for the rest of her life? On my dime? That's what you're proposing.This editorial was in the paper this morning by one of our police chiefs. Our state will be voting on universal background checks in November. Probably we're not the only one. Universal background checks do help! At least it's better than nothing.
"Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Commitment to public service is ingrained in my family’s DNA. My grandfather served the city of Portland as a lieutenant in the police force for 30 years, and my father was a captain in the city of Portland Fire Department. He died in the line of duty in 1956.
Their calling to serve the people of Maine was passed on to me when I joined the U.S. Army as a military policeman in 1969 and then the Cape Elizabeth Police Department as a patrolman. Forty-two years later, I’m the chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, an organization that represents law enforcement officers in our state.
Background checks help to protect police officers and other first responders, and they make our communities safer. For these reasons, I am committed to the expansion of background checks to all gun sales and transfers in Maine.
I wish I could say things were different, but my years of experience have shown me that bad people will do bad things. Exploiting available loopholes to get their hands on a gun is second nature to criminals. We know that background checks on all gun sales are the best, most effective way to make sure felons and other dangerous people can’t get guns easily.
Since 1998, we’ve applied the federal law that requires background checks to be conducted on gun sales at licensed firearms dealers. And it has worked. That law has stopped more than 5,500 gun sales to dangerous people in Maine, whether they be felons, domestic abusers or other prohibited people.
Still, the loophole makes it incredibly easy for them to instead find the firearm they are looking for online or in classified ads from an unlicensed dealer and buy that gun with no questions asked. As Maine Public Broadcasting Network recently reported, the unlicensed gun market in Maine is “ booming.”
Question 3 fixes this.
In the 18 states that already require background checks for all gun sales, 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are killed with handguns, 48 percent fewer individuals take their own lives with guns and 46 percent fewer women are shot and killed by their intimate partners. What’s more, we’ve also seen a 48 percent reduction in gun trafficking. By comparison, in Missouri, where lawmakers in 2007 repealed a law requiring background checks on all private gun sale, saw a 25 percent spike in firearm-related homicides.
It’s indisputable that background checks work.
This is a measure that enhances public safety while protecting law enforcement officers.
I’ve also heard the anecdotal scenarios that opponents to Question 3 have offered, which, they say, point to shortcomings in the initiative. There are those who say this measure would turn law-abiding Mainers into criminals, but in the 18 states where these laws are already in place, that has not proven true. The initiative allows people to loan guns to their hunting friends and to give or sell guns to family members without a background check.
Unfortunately, as with any campaign, there’s a lot of misinformation out there. Despite those vague and hypothetical scenarios, Question 3 is and should be seen as an extension of Maine’s heritage of responsible gun ownership.
No one wants criminals to have easy access to guns. By ensuring background checks are conducted for all sales and transfers of firearms, Mainers can be assured that when they are selling or transferring their gun, they know that whoever is on the receiving end is not a dangerous person. This is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.
I’ve spent my career working side by side with the many good men and women of the Maine law enforcement community to protect and serve the people of this state. I want Maine to be safe, and I want to protect and preserve our heritage of responsible gun ownership. Question 3 does just that.
As a lifelong law enforcement officer and a proud Mainer, I urge voters to join me in voting yes on Question 3 in November.
Ed Tolan is chief of the Falmouth Police Department and president of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which has endorsed a “yes” vote on Question 3."
Background checks are the best way to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people
Wrong. The best way to protect the people is to lock up violent criminals instead of releasing them into the public.
If a citizen is considered "too dangerous" to own a gun, why isn't he locked up?
