Dear Editor:

When the average voter looks at Question 3 they think sure, why not, if it will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The voter who actually looks at the bill and its wording starts to realize that it is, at best, convoluted. It is not until someone listens to or reads a more comprehensive explanation that they begin to see the dangers of this bill.

Let’s take the exemptions for instance and yes, there are some. Family is exempted and the list is quite clear what constitutes that. People are exempted if they are hunting together or at the range together but if you want to borrow a gun to do either without the owner present you have taken ownership and require a background check. Exempted is someone in “imminent” danger but don’t think of lending a young woman with an abusive partner soon to be released from jail a firearm to back that PFA up. Not unless you are going to follow her around and toss it to her when she is in “imminent” danger. Curio and collectible permit holders are exempted, but only if both people have one. Finally, the word temporary is thrown in a few times just to be sure you have to have a law degree to be sure you are in compliance.

This law is flawed and a great many law enforcement officers feel it is unenforceable. The DOJ determined that it would require a comprehensive registry of all firearms to begin to be effective.

The stated purpose of this law is to make it tougher for criminals but all it does is affect law abiding citizens. What it does is make civilian ownership of firearms inconvenient by placing more and more laws on the books to confuse and intimidate lawful gun owners.

Maine enjoys the second lowest rate of violent crime in the country. This law seeks to solve a problem Maine does not have and puts law abiding citizens at risk of breaking laws they don’t understand and Maine doesn’t need.

For more information go to ubcbadforme.com

Linc Sample

Boothbay Harbor