I think it is great that Tom Mauser is coming to speak in Augusta on this important issue and hope a lot of people will be listening.

"...private transfers of firearms be facilitated by federally licensed firearms dealers..."

Dumb. Red tape and gummint interference for law-abiding citizens...

With all due respect to Mr. Mauser's loss. It seems that Ms. Ordway's opinion is the basis of foreshadowing Tom Mauser's visit. My response to that "opinion" is the same so I am reposting it.

Criminals will always find access to firearms, breaking any law they need to obtain them.

Crazy people will find access to firearms or even worse, access to these "vests" the terrorists love so much to obtain the attention they seek to end their pathetic lives. The anti-explosives act did nothing to prevent the perpetrators of Columbine to manufacture them.

Removing the right to keep and bear arms will not make one iota of difference to these two segments of society.

Whether you are anti-gun or pro-gun, you have to agree on the logic expounded above.

Here is a "novel" idea; what would of happened if any one of those crazy people encountered an armed LEO, security guard or CCW holder during their massacre binge? Is it just possible that the result of such an action focuses the attention on the rescuer rather than the notoriety the crazy person is seeking?

Legislating away and restricting my right and CHOICE to keep and bear arms will NOT solve the issue at hand!

Bubba, thats what they do in MD. Tranfer of weapons and new purchases have to be done that way. Key word supose too.....

While in the military, I was stationed in a some places that had one form or another of the instant background check. At no time while purchasing firearms in these places did this pose any real delay in the process compared to a waiting period as in other states I was stationed in. You still have to fill out the federal form and even a bank wouldn't just approve you for a loan without doing a credit check just because you filled out an application. A shop owner just taking your word for it because you checked the right blocks and have an apparently credible form of ID won't go far in stopping an illegal gun sale and when it's discovered that the buyer lied or isn't legally allowed to buy one, it's too late. As a gun owner and lawful citizen I don't find it offensive to be subjected to an instant background check, why would I if it's legal for me to own one? Many employers conduct background checks before hiring someone, why is this any different in the grand scheme of things? I'm not anti-gun, and I'm not for gun control, but I think this supports the intent of the forms you fill out anyway to legally buy a firearm and is a reasonable step in keeping them out of the hands of those not authorized to have them. On the other hand, if you are selling a firearm and you personally know the buyer, I don't agree that transferring it through a dealer with a FFL is necessary. Selling one to a stranger, see above. In today's age of litigation, and going after anyone remotely involved in a tragedy it would be stupid not to take the necessary steps to ensure everything is above board. Just my two cents.

Anybody see any correlation of recent mass murders increasing lately, and the assult rifle ban elapsing?

Or with the economy in shambles, normal law abiding citizens that have guns are going postal?

I just think that maybe if people didn't have guns so readily availiable when they go into a crisis, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to turn to violence.

Oh and by the way, I think that the lawmakers should stick to the facts and good judgement when deciding an issue, not emotions. Tom Mauser is undoubtedly entitled to his grief but it shouldn't be used to support an agenda appealing to the sentimental side of our lawmakers to gain a decision in favor of the anti-gun crowd. If the pro-gun side had some would-be victim who lawfully used a weapon to prevent a serious tragedy, you can be assured the anti-gun side would feel the same way I do on this and not want that person to try to appeal to the legislature either.

Mr. Tom Mauser has every right to speak up. People can listen; they do not have to do anything more than that. To call it merely sentimental, is ridiculous.

I recall when Ronald Reagan's aide Mr. Brady was critically wounded, he and his wife later spoke of in favor of more backgrouns checks,etc. and the Brady law was eventually passed.

But the right wing conservatives here would have been all right with that probably, but not with this citizen , Mr. Mauser speaking.

Kind of hypocritical. Anyway once again....he has a right to speak; no one is pulling anyone's leg to do anything other than that that day in Augusta. I am sure if there are enough pro-gun people in Maine, that this man speaking on behalf of a bill should not be any great concern to the pro-gun people.

I'm sorry for your loss Mauser but go home, this is not Colorado. We don't need your laws here. Historically and statistically Maine does not have the problems that other states have with guns. Don't you dare try to influence others here in Maine to infringe on my rights. You worry about Colorado and Maine citizens and gun owners will take care of business here. Go home.

We need nut control. How do you control a nut with a gun. Fight fire with fire!

I would expect that Mr. Mauser's grief has been assuaged since that terrible time, but he probably does have some personal wisdom gained through the details of how those boys obtained their weapons of assassination. One does not need assault rifles to be a hunter of deer or moose, but they are extremely effective when one intends to be a hunter of human beings. Two Boston P.D. speakers for a recent writers' seminar pointed out that "Boston sees more revolvers than other parts of the country. The only other place that comes close is Las Vegas." Not that difficult to traffic revolvers from Boston to Maine.

Bob from Orland provided a very logical explanation. You have to provide basic info when applying for a credit card, a driver's license, a bank loan, etc. Seems reasonable to provide some basic info when purchasing a killing machine. After all, it might save a life. Seems worth the few moments. And if you need the gun so soon you can't wait for the clearance, maybe your intended use for the gun wasn't all that innocent after all. Better to be a emotionally balanced hunter than someone just out for the kill of something...or someone.

Mr. Mauser has experienced a terrible loss, but it was acyually a criminal and not-a-gun that killed his son. Let's focus on the real problem here, the criminals. Leave us law-abiding citizens alone, and solve the real problem.

Please, no ,more gun control laws are needed

Bob from Orland. You said it. That would keep everyone above the board.BUT ONLY IF all played by the rules. Pass it on said a mouth full. If any of you can prove to me that criminals will never get ahold of guns. I would turn mine in tomorrow. But what you all want to do is disarm the honest sane gun owner. You say no?? The law abiding gun owner follows the rules, the criminal never will. Tell you what you place a sign in your yard saying, no guns here, I am antigun. No guns past this sign, Thank you Mr and Mrs such and such. You will not do that? Why??

My $.02 worth