Legal, illegal weapons
Since the tragic shooting in Connecticut, I have talked to some people about reinstating the ban on assault weapons. A few of these people have repeated the usual National Rifle Association argument that if a person wants an assault weapon bad enough, they will get one anyway.
Unfortunately that’s basically a true statement. However, my question is, so what? Does that mean that we have to continue to make it so easy? Do we have to continue to give them these weapons on a silver platter?
Why not make it difficult for a person to obtain one of these weapons? Why not make them have to go underground to get these weapons? Why not make them have to pay much more for an illegal assault weapon than they would have to pay for a legal one?
To continue to make it so easy is unacceptable.
Another benefit of making these weapons illegal is that if a person is caught with one, they might end up in jail. Any problem with that?
Mike Gagnon
Fort Kent
MDI senior care
The College of the Atlantic claims to focus on environmental studies and human studies. You might think that with such programs the college would be more sensitive to the human and environmental costs they would inflict on the hapless seniors they plan to throw under the bus by commandeering their homes at Harvard Hill, when more humane options are available. The people affected would pay a heavy price, by being separated from their friends and support system, and cast into strange, probably less comfortable and affordable living situations. Is it too much to ask that these people, many in their twilight years, be left in peace?
The seniors of Mount Desert Island have been comparatively fortunate in have a caring community that respects them and does its best to help provide them with comfortable, affordable living space. The college seems to care little for such a philosophy and prefers to place themselves in the ranks of those in Congress who would demolish Medicare and Social Security as we know them.
The limited financial means of these seniors place them in a poor position to fight this cavalier action of a deep-pocketed college. Let us hope that there is a compassionate, public-spirited attorney out there who will step forward to defend these people on a pro-bono basis.
Gene Clifford
Southwest Harbor
Firearms dealers’ responsibility
A federal firearms license holder with whom I’m familiar recently remarked to me that he sees no reason for people to own powerful “assault-style” weapons that are capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute when matched with high-capacity magazines; they aren’t useful for “varmint control” or necessary to larger animal hunting, nor are they necessary to use to maintain firearms proficiency.
However, to paraphrase, he then said, “Well, people want them, it’s legal to sell them, and I can use the money.”
I have also known, in past decades, firearms dealers who chose not to sell firearms that are more accurately thought of as weapons, and who asked questions of prospective purchasers about what they intended to use a particular firearm for — and who would refuse a sale based upon the response given.
No combination of highly politicized, excessively sophisticated, top-down regulations will likely effectively address the challenges inherent in an attempt to prevent events such as occurred two weeks ago.
Some members of our communities seem to think that arming ourselves strategically could deter, discourage or minimize harms inflicted in that way. I doubt that accepting a “pistol in every pocket” approach will help. We must also, as individuals, accept responsibility for the creation of, and maintenance of, civil society.
Gary Roberts
Belmont
Trickle down morality
As a great-grandmother and Mainer for 45 years, the recent senseless violence, both here and nationwide, deeply concerns me.
Like the rest of you, I have been seriously concerned about the amoral attitudes being practiced by the so-called leaders of our society. The past election was a horror show of bad manners and blatant lies on the part of many of the candidates and their supporters.
The “moral” majority have too, too often shown their bigotry and prejudice of anyone who does not espouse their own particular beliefs, and much of the media eats it up and digests it. So how, with this constant barrage of economic and moral turpitude, do we expect the general populace not to mirror this behavior?
Is it time for a change, and will that change be aids to character building and togetherness or more and more sanctions for we citizens to “protect” us from one another? Please abjure the blame game and use the horror of this latest sad incident as a talking point to bring us together, noticing and caring about our neighbors, not only in our own towns, cities and states, but also on a worldwide basis, to save all of us from isolation and fear of that which, being different, seems frightening.
Sharing and knowledge are the tools we need to survive, not more guns and isolationism. And certainly not a turn toward a police state mentality.
Janice E. Kelley
Belfast
Yes, yes Janice Kelly, it’s all very well to have caring discussion groups, send out waves of good Karma, hold hands and sing Kumbya. We also need laws controlling assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
Controlling weapons made for combat does not mean a police state. Sing, dance and abjure the blame game if you think it will help but don’t think for a moment that will erase 40 years of insistence on individual rights to any and all guns and 40 years of cutting mental health budgets. In those 40 years the public’s right to safety, sanity and security has been ignored.
If Kumbya worked we wouldn’t have had Newtown.
there is a huge difference from a civilian AR-15 and a military M-4. The M4 has a 3 round burst trigger ,means it shoots 3 bullets each pull. Also, older M16A1 models have full auto and can empty the 30 round clip in 3 seconds. Both the full and 3 round burst are illegal, and you can only buy one made before 1986 with an incredibly difficult and expensive class 3 license that probably less than a few thousand people have.
Now the difference between a civlian AR-15 and say a .308 semi auto hunting rifle is, well firstly the .308 bullets are bigger than the .223/5.56mm bullets in an AR-15, and that’s about it. Oh wait, the AR-15 has more ergonomical featuers like a pistol grip, hand guards, and is much lighter. So what the hell will this do if we ban them?
Another problem is the current feinstein bill essentially bans the production of anymore guns that are not revolvers, lever action/bolt action/pump action guns. Any gun with a detachable magazine is being banned. Existing guns will have to be registered under a more stricter form of the class 3 license where it is no longer legal to even sell the guns.
So you ban gun owners from selling their guns, what will they do with them? SELL THEM TO PEOPLE WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS!
The only way to fix this while still preserving our God given liberties (i am sorry if the word God offends you) is to do background checks when you buy or sell a gun to someone no matter what (all stores are required to do this but not gun shows or private sales), and to make people accountable for their guns if they make no attempt to make it difficult for them to be stolen. We need to block CERTAIN PEOPLE not CERTAIN GUNS.
If military style rifles are not needed for defense, than why does the Secret Service carry P90s? Why do they carry M4s? Why does the ATF, FBI, DHS all use AR-15 derived rifles?
Joe: the AK-15 was not designed as a hunting rifle. It was designed for mass killings. While you may enjoy a bullet spattered, Rambo
weekend spraying the north woods with your AK-15 real hunters know that gun as poor substitute for a good hunting rifle. There is no logical reason for the average citizen to own semi-automatic assault weapons with high capacity magazines.
While you have a constitutional right to own a firearm there is no specific right to own weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Additionally the public has a right to be safe from mass shootings in public places.
The Feinstein bill, in spite of what the NRA has told you, will do a good job of getting assault weapons out of the public venue. It corrects the faults of the old assault weapons ban and extends it to cover exactly the situation you mention.
While the old law banned 18 specific types of weapons by name, Feinstein’s law would ban 120 specifically-named firearms. Unlike the old law, Feinstein’s proposal would ban semiautomatic weapons and handguns with fixed magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, effectively making it tougher for gunmen to shoot at large groups of people quickly.
While Feinstein’s bill would “grandfather” in semiautomatic weapons made before the ban, people who have those weapons would have to undergo background checks. Currently, private sellers aren’t required
to check backgrounds of people buying guns. In addition of registration and background checks for assault weapons there would be a $200 fee for every transfer of ownership of the weapon. Should the owner die the weapon does not get automatically passed down to the next relative. It becomes the property of the
government.
This bill in no way restricts your ownership of hunting rifles or hand guns with limited capacity magazines. It does ban a type of weapon that normal citizens have no legitimate use for. Of course it will not stop all rampage shootings. It will not stop all gang killings. It will not stop accidental shootings or crimes of passion and robberies. It is, however, a step in preserving the right of the public to be safe from mass killings in public places.
In the last 40 years we have spent far too long listening exclusively to those that insist on individual rights and almost no time listening to those that advocate for the rights of society
AR-15’s are used all the time for hunting, or have you never heard of a .223 bolt action rifle? I will happily abide by the same gun laws as Obama’s security detail.
and don’t forget competition shooting. ARs are used there as well.
As far as certain firearm styles that were first designed as military weapons, that’s actually most firearms. Although perfectly suitable, the old Springfield 1903 was not designed for hunting deer, but then, that was never the point of the second amendment.
Sally,
criminals do not obey they law. it is a fact that trumps everything you just said. Hi cap magazines only matter in a gun fight. Adam Lanza had plenty of time to re-load a bolt action rifle, one round at a time, thirty times if he had one and wanted to. Why? because there was no defender there to suppress him. If all this makes you seem powerless, it should, because that is what an unarmed citizen is to an armed menace/criminal. Don’t categorize me as the Public, I am a person who wishes to defend himself; If you don’t, that is your choice. Society rights come down to individual rights no matter how you look at it. I have a right to defend myself.
“If military style rifles are not needed for defense, than why does the Secret Service carry P90s? Why do they carry M4s? Why does the ATF, FBI, DHS all use AR-15 derived rifles”?
They are not being carried for defense, they are being carried for offense.
Gene Clifford: I agree COA looks pretty hypocritical here, but not knowing the details, for every buyer, there has to be a seller. Not sure why the property is being sold and if COA didn’t buy it, some developer would grab it and build another monstrosity of a hotel like the new one on West Street. It looks like Disneyland down there now. Yuck.
Mr. Gagnon Gun related violence was higher during the last ban.They have already tried that and it did not work .Maybe we should let teachers who want to not be victimized carry or do you not think they are responsible enough.Maybe instead of infringing on others rights we should empower those we already trust with our children.
Mr. Roberts either the ffd you deal with does not know the difference between an fully automatic weapon that is capable of firing hundreds of rounds a minute and are already restricted and a semi automatic weapon that can not fire hundreds of rounds a minute regardless of magazine capacity or you are telling a fib.
“Another benefit of making these weapons illegal is that if a person is caught with one, they might end up in jail. Any problem with that?”
How about the tens of thousands of law abiding citizens who would instantly be deemed criminals?
they could be given time to turn the guns in.
It’ll be a cold day in hell before I do that, no matter what the law says. Remember that this is the same government that feels it can assassinate you, lock you up indefinitely without a trial, spy on you without a warrant, and pretty much regulate any and every aspect of our lives.
You did notice that it was conservatives that reauthorized the warrantless spying and the lock up without trial.
I did notice that, and just because I support gun rights does not make me a conservative Republican. So, yes, conservatives introduced these things, but Obama signed NDAA and has done nothing to repeal these assaults on our liberties.
Okey dokey.
Nope just turn them over or go to jail.
That’s what I meant, either hand over your property or be deemed a criminal.
Ok, we should ban SUVs since they kill a lot of people, turn them in for a smart car or go to jail.
good ? but I think they would be grandfathered
In order to turn something in, it must be something one already has.
Tens of thousand? Sorry Cap, that number would be in the millions. What Mike G fails to see is that with a silly felony like the one he proposes, means that millions of US citizens would lose their right to own a gun, vote and get a decent job, not to mention a loss of privacy as their names are plastered all over national crime databases. It would be the biggest disfranchisement of individual rights since slavery and that is.
Mike Gagnon, if there is a law change and it’s turned into a felony to posess a banned weapon. The consequence will be jail time. Umm, that will cost money. Money that society isn’t willing to pay. If they are willing to pay, wouldn’t it be more productive to dedicate the money used to investigate, prosecute and house a convicted owner of an illegal gun, to reopen psychiatric hospital beds with trained staff to help the likely perpetrators of a Newtown type assault?
I agree 100%. we should fight crime, not inanimate objects.
Gene Clifford, ship them to Calais to live in assisted living. Everyone knows that Bar Harbor is only for the healthy and wealthy. If you aren’t wealthy and aren’t healthy your purpose is not to maintain a presence in Bar Harbor.
Ooops scratch the Calais idea if you need a nursing home. They took the beds to Ellsworth.
Mr. Roberts, could you please name the dealers that make statements like that. Surely they don’t need any of my business.
Good letters all.
Many of you are stating we should make it illegal to possess something you already own simply because it could be used in a crime. Doing this would violate lets see, amendment 4 for unlawful seizure of property, amendment 2 ‘right to bare and keep arms shall not be infringed’, amendment 5, amendment 6 and amendment 7. Basically you are guilty until proven innocence, you are guilt of a crime without committing one, you are guilty without due process of law (the crime is committed for just owning something). This makes no sense.
Legislating restrictions to “rights” does make sense and has been done many times. You have a right to free speech. That right has been both expanded and restricted in the last 5 years. Having a “right” to firearms ownership doesn’t mean unrestricted ownership. You may not own rocket propelled grenades nor may your own automatic weapons.
What you apparently don’t choose to understand is that the public has rights also. Society has a right to expect safety in public places and when that is threatened as it has been on several occasion in the past 4 years by dangerous people using weapons that can kill a lot of people in a very short time then society acting through its government has a compelling interest in restricting these kinds of weapons.
In the last 40 years we have spent far too long listening exclusively to those that insist on individual rights and almost no time listening to those that advocate for the rights of society. It is time to change.
What isn’t put out in the mainstream media is Adam Lanza tried to purchase a gun but was turned away. Probably why he had his older brother’s ID. Distill it down to facts, without the relationship to his mother, he entered a home, killed the occupant and used the occupant’s legal firearms to commit the shootings. What gun laws will stop that? Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.