This federal case, if won, would work just fine for Maine and other rural states where there is a respect for firearms that are ingrained in residents from a very young age. That being said...this case, if won, would be very, very bad for large cities struggling with a lot of gun crimes, drug dealing rackets and gang violence. Just like people in large cities have no business telling rural Maine what their gun laws should be, the folks here should likewise realize that there are places in our country that really DO need some gun laws and regulations.

Absolutely Centaurmyst, each state should pass their own gun laws and regulations. Hi crime cities like New York, Chicago and California should be able to regulate firearms coming and going into their states. A local gun dealer here in my state was caught selling illegal firearms into New York City. they got caught, loss their business, payed a hefty fine and can't sell any more firearms. These are the people that make it so hard for states to maintain the right to bear arms. Law biding citizens are the ones that end up paying for their mistakes, for all it has to do is $$$$$$$. We the people need to stand firm on our right to bear arms, but also look out for the ones who are selling guns illegally and trying to take that freedom away from you and me. Each state should have the right to pass what laws they feel need to be on the books to deal with their high crime rate etc. Not Maine or other states trying to shove their rules down their thoats....like you said, people in large cities have no business telling rural Maine what their gun laws should be, vise versa.....

Well, Centaurmyst and flyfishing, that sounds all well and good, but down here in Massachusetts, what we have now is a law that allows local chiefs of police to issue handgun licenses at their disgression, a so-called "may issue" law. The result is, even in the suburbs of Boston and a good deal further out, people such as myself have to jump through hoops and have our 2nd Amendment rights denied just because somebody in Boston has a gun illegally and is using it for drug crimes.

I welcome this McDonald vs. Chicago verdict.

I am going to openly admit that I am a bit biased about people from Massachusetts when it comes to guns. I know this doesn't apply to all people from there but during my time living in Vermont every single hunting season someone from Mass would come up to "hunt" in NH or VT and kill dogs, cows and even an elderly man in his 70's picking berries! I'm not so sure I object to that "may issue" law. Well at least not as it would apply to people who don't know how to hunt but go to neighboring states to slaughter pets, livestock and elderly berry pickers.

In areas with less gun control laws there is less crime. But in areas where there is less gun control and good education there is even less crime.

big citys do nto have lower crime rates becasue of gun laws if that logic were true then cicago and new york would be the safiest citys in the country, people having the right to own guns is what helps controll crime. Laws that ban guns from law abiding citizens do not in any way stop crimanals from getting or carrying weapons, why easy annswer they are already crimnals. In the town i live in we have 80 percent of the population owning some sort of firearm, so insnt funny how we have a very low b and e rate or major crimes but yet in bangor where it is a lower preceantage the robbers adn hoem in vasions are ont he way up. You dont break into people house or try to rob them if they may be able to defend them selfs.

I guess what i feal is simple let people who want to own fire arms have them if they can pass the yellow sheet, if they do then leave them alone. If they want to pay to have a conceled carry like me my wife and my mother all do then let us becasue we pay for that right. Let people live thier lifes how they want as long as they are nto hurting others, becasue if you every have to call the police becasue someone is breaking inn or trying to killyou in a big city make sure to ask them to hold on whiel the cops respond it might be 10 mins but more then likly it willl be at least 30. Cops do a great job where they can but they are not a protection force as much as a clean up crew, they come after the fight, robbery, break in, and muders already happen.

so why dosent every oen live and let live instead of trying to controll each other, if the big citys want to ban all guns then more and more people will leave as the crime rates will go up. As they once said when you make weapons illeagal then only crimalnals will have weapons.

Well, apparently no one in this has actually read the second ammendment. In case you all were wondering, ammendments to the constitution were to protect the individual rights of the citizens. My absolute right to possess a firearm. Have a look around, read the news, and forget your silly attempts to strip the rights of law abiding citizens. Drug dealers and other scumbags do not care about gun restricting laws. Only the ones who should have them will abide by them. Good for Maine and other 43 states. Put the guns in the hands of the right people. No more savage attempts on my freedoms.

Somedays you just have to Wonder

If the Gangsters

Are not running a anti-gun lobby

And Paying and Supporting the Anti-Gun Nuts Jobs<<

BTW Pingree~~If you were not out the door already.

You for sure are NOW>With that Lack of Support<<

Rep. Chellie Pingre will never uphold the Mine or US Constitution. Impeach her.

ElectraGlide: I can't believe it but, for once, I agree with you RE 5:35.

Pingree needs to go...

The Pingree dolt needs to be removed.

Out with Pingree! Chop off her head, put it on a pike! The constitutions 2nd amendment protects the rights of people to posses arms. Saying that the people of one state can not dictate the actions of the other state is an issue that was setteled long ago, and Maine was pivitol in that decision. Slaveory was abolished everywhere in the union, not just in Maine. Freedom of the press is good here, and in Massachusetts, not because one state thinks it should, and another says it shouldent. We have a constitution that outlines what our rights are, and who gave them to us. It says not "the rights as granted to the people by the government benevolent" Rather the rights are granted inalianably by the creator- They are your right as granted by God, and thus, you who are not fearfull of death, as God fearing people often are, have given the government the ability to frame a basis of civility- you give government the privalage to exsist- in all of this we have a document that is published that gives us a reasonable expectation of conduct, as to what activitys are allowed as we travel thru, and within the several states, I have the freedom to worship, assemble, print, express, ARM MYSELF, be safe from search, have privecy, have use of Habius Corpus- I can demand to be brought before a judge, and have a proberbal cause hearing, The list goes on and on, and I expect to be protected by this doctren, when and if I choose to amble at will. or remain within my home.

I took the Job of defending liberty, not just for a terminal period, but for the duration of my days. perhaps some of you have taken up the same cause to "protect and uphold".

The argument that "if guns are banned only criminals will posses guns" is absurd!

Do you think that the men and women that layed there lives on the ground in the cause of freedom where deemed ritiouse by the Tyrannical government of England?

There was a conflict in law, between law of Government, or of God, and the question shall remain always to freedom loving people as to which shall remaine supreame, If the Government Bans Guns, it is the obligation of freedom loving ,God fearing people to posses and overthrow such tyranical orders, by peacefull means or otherwise.

Collins and Snowe are clawing their way back to Republican principles. Good move on their part, but a small step to get my vote again.

When I lived in Maine, (the first sixty years of my life ), I had hunting rifles but I never felt the need to have a handgun for protection. Retired and in a small community in Florida I feel almost as safe without one. However, if I were in D. C. or N. Y. C. or Miami I think I would want a handgun handy.

Finally - Maine gets one right !!! - And just where is Sheeley Pingree????

She's on the opposite side of the debate from her constituents...like the rest of the state government on most things.

The State needs to go after the real danger... Tire Irons!!! All the moderates out there better go to church and thank the red neck knuckle draggers that love Jesus, their wife, and their right to bear arms! Snowe, Collins, Pingree are robots of the system and need to be voted out, we NEED a political revolution and clean and reduce Agusta and Washington!

The Bill Of Rights is not something each individual State should have the right to interpret. This is a Federal issue, peroid.

guns are, in a sense like abortions...if the government enacts restrictions, people will get them illegally. And in both cases it's pretty dangerous.

Our elected officials finally looking out for "we the people" and upholding and defending the Constitution of this great Nation.NICE!!!

Lethbridge how dare you insult human life and my armory like that! Browning weeps.

turkey, i apologize. my analogy may have been rough. i forgot to deal with the fact that there are no such thing high caliber assault babies...(i.e. Khalil of Krypton??)

I love Maine, having family there and a frequent visitor for 50 years. I would live there if there was employment. Here in Florida we take our gun rights seriously, where the constitution says every legal Floridian has the right to firearm ownership. No descretion by local law like in Mass. and Connecticut. A few years ago we adopted a new law called the castle doctrine, which in part states a homeowner has no expectation to back off with someone on your property. So you are entitled to defend yourself or family at home or in your vehicle without recriminations. It should not matter whether you live in Portland or northern Piscataquis County, our bill of rights applies to all. The decision by the Supreme Court must be a right from Machias to San Diego.

Centaurmyst - having gun laws does not mean private ownership has to be trampled on. It is because of the crimes, drug dealing, etc. that individuals should have the right to bear arms and protect themselves, and if that right were in place, you would begin to see a decrease in violent crimes.

LethbridgeStewart - guns are like abortions?? Guns don't kill people....abortions do.

TurkeyTalker your right on target. It's coming - a revolution to clean the crud out of Washington and Augusta is coming .. and none too soon. This state and all the other states are though picking candidates from the bottom of the barrel. Vote out all incumbents will be the new battle cry.

chris, i think you missed my point. (which was pro-gun and pro-choice...) ...if more restrictions are placed on guns, then people will get them through illegal channels. much like if more restrictions were placed on family planning, those that were going to have an abortion would get it through improper channels as well.

Functionally, there is no similarity. The comparison i was drawing was regarding government intervention.

The system has outgrown its support and is now a hindrance instead of a help. They are no longer Public Servants or Statesmen, they are now Czars fleeseing the commonwealth not for our benefit, but their own. When millions can be spent on the Global Hoax Summit our illustrious ruler just attended, to discuss how to spend Billions more in debt money to the Communist Chinese, all the while polluting and whoring, and spending and laughing at those who disagree! All I want for Chirstmas is a Radical Change in Governing Practices. Our debt could be cured in one day...Slash our Federal Budget and employees by 50%. Let the employees either create or get jobs in the private sector. Let those who are dependant on welfare find community charity funds. Tough at first but within 4 years we could be solvent again. Merry Christmas!

I just had a young woman show me her baby via ultra sound picture. She was so proud, and the child was only 8 weeks old!

Lethbridge, the abortion debate, like many of the other debates that have gone on here the last few months is very polarizing. I am passionate about freedom and common sense government, and am staunchly pro-life. Interesting that it is a crime and horror to shoot a baby immediately after it is born, but as long as we can't see the child safely developing in the mother's womb it's acceptable to tear it apart and suction off the mess. No wonder we are going down the toilet as a Nation.

so government oversight is neither inherently good nor bad, but is better judged on what is being regulated?

Imagine the Christmas this couple and their family and friends could of had............(see link)

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=138639&catid=3

Pingree needs to go. At best her positions on this and other issues are unintelligible.

Chris...I've lived in many different areas of the US and the mentality about guns is very different depending on where you are. Here in Maine, kids are raised to have a deep respect for guns. There is a much higher level of awareness and maturity towards guns, even from a very young age in mostly rural states like Maine. In more urban areas people view guns much differently. There is a very high level of gun irresponsibility in urban areas. Regarding self defense...many people have died after pulling a gun on a criminal and having that criminal get control of the gun. There are a lot of variables to take into consideration. If the people in NYC want gun control then they should be able to vote on the issue and allow the citizens to decide as a community or state.

Too bad the justices missed that day in the sixth grade when the teacher taught us about commas....The Second Amendment applies to a militia or national guard...It says nothing about citizens at large having guns.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."

Tench Coxe, 1788.

Who was Tench Coxe? Did anyone's 6th grade teacher teach anyone about him? Probably not. There were a lot of people back then who thought that the 2nd Amendment applied to the people (who were, after all, the militia back then). Personally, I wish schools would teach US History in a far greater depth then they do, but of course, there's not enough time. Nonetheless, back then, people like Tench Coxe helped to shape the constitution, and I think that they'd have plenty to say about the way we are (IMHO) misinterpreting and manipulating it in the name of "safety" today.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Tench_Coxe.aspx

Please read the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. I would quote it, but, judging from many of the comments here, I'm afraid that many of you wouldn't believe me. RevGerald has it right. It's about a well regulated militia, NOT about individuals. The state militias have morphed into the National Guard. Read some of the National Guard's own publications concerning their history. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individual's gun rights. If anything, the Second Amendment is about gun control (regulated use of arms) I expect to get some quick thumbs down. Before that happens, I really hope that some of you will go back and read some of the comments that have been removed because of repeated thumbs down.

I think you need to research.

The bill of rights deals with "individual rights"!!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

our forefathers knew the people had to have the right to bear arms, to be able to form a militia when the need arises.

Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all

In Parker v. District of Columbia (March 2007), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban on grounds that it violates the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms. The case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which may soon address the meaning of the Second Amendment. Almost any standard would be an improvement over Miller.

We will have our answer in the near future, so the argument will be mute. Want to bet on which way it goes?

What's the next issue going to be? Legalize abortion up to the age of 2 years?

Quote: "The bill of rights deals with "individual rights"!!

BINGO!

Quote: "our forefathers knew the people had to have the right to bear arms, to be able to form a militia when the need arises."

BINGO!

Quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the ****PEOPLE**** to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

BINGO!

We can "spin" it any way we like; however, the fact of the matter remains that our founding fathers made that amendment for many reasons, and fear of guns was not one of them. Criminals killing people with guns was not it - with emphasis on "criminals" - in fact, a person can kill someone with their bare hands. How do we regulate that?

I'm sorry, but you can't take some peoples rights away just because of where they live. What's next then? After they ban ownership in these bigger cities they are going to start moving towards the rural communities. Plus, they don't care if you were taught to respect a weapon or not. No matter the Law in place the criminals are still going to get their weapons illegally. Do you really think the hardcore criminals have registered weapons? Wake up and smell the coffee.

heres a thought, need a gun with out a gun check, go get a copy of your local uncle henrys.

I'm not sure. Rural or City. Rural people live in the city. City people live in the rural. The point is NO ONE has the right to judge or have an "opinion" on self defense or the lack of it. I live rural but I have been a burb dweller. I never lock my door to my home and I never take the keys out of my car. In the city they call that stupid in the country it is called "bait".

Yes I carry. Have since 14 years old. Never have pulled it. Don't need a license. My license is the 2nd. One thing for sure. I will never stand and watch a cop draw a chalk line around my daughter without the cop having to draw two of them.

Am I a gun toting redneck? Probably. But my resume' and diploma say I am an aerospace design engineer. Do I know what "individual" means? Do I know what "shall not be infringed" means? Yes I do. I knew it in Nam. City, country, or Saigon. It's all the same. Free

Now back off Brady. Until you have been where I have been ..........shut up or you will get a little taste of America.

Figures Pinagree wouldn’t sign this Brief she is a waste of air this should be a sign of her stance on our civil rights

Coming from a state like Mass that had very restrictive gun laws and a high crime rate. When miscreants know there are guns in the neighborhood they tend to stay away from those areas. Especially if they know people are empowered to protect their property and themselves. this is one of the reasons why I moved to Maine .we should have some regulation like Maine has .but other than that leave us alone .some of these socialist states think that criminals listen to their laws and they think that no one should own a gun . But what they don’t think about is criminals don’t obey the law and hitting them with a stick is kind of hard when they pointing a 9mm or another pistol at you

Thank the people who signed this brief