http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/statehouse/050517assault.shtml
May 17, 2005
The weapons ban would have made it illegal to own, transfer or manufacture assault weapons, as well as .50-caliber rifles and ammunition. The bill would have replaced an expired federal ban on the manufacture of assault weapons, and would have been tougher.
The bill defined assault weapons to include a long list of specific guns, such as the AK-47, as well as other semi-automatic weapons that meet certain criteria, such as those with a detachable magazine and a folding stock.
Strimling initially tried to water down his own bill to protect existing gun manufacturers, such as Bushmaster Firearms of Windham, as well as current gun owners. But he later asked the Legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee to kill the bill, which that panel did.
The House of Representatives learned by letter Monday that the committee had unanimously rejected the proposed ban. A unanimous committee vote against a bill automatically kills it, eliminating the need for floor votes in the House and Senate.
Under legislative rules, the Legislature cannot take up the issue again next year, forcing supporters to wait until 2007 before they can resurrect it. Strimling said Monday that he wants to rewrite the bill and ''generate a little more grass-roots support from folks'' before he asks the Legislature to revisit the issue.
Gun owners turned out in force to oppose the bill when the legislative committee held a public hearing on May 2, arguing in part that the ban would be unnecessary because there is no evidence that such weapons have been used to commit crimes in Maine since the 1930s. They also said that the weapons are used in competition, and that outlawing them would violate the state Constitution.
The few supporters of the ban who testified at the hearing countered that assault weapons allow shooters to quickly spray a large area with gunfire, posing a risk of multiple injuries or fatalities. Conceding that the ban was not proposed in response to an existing problem, they said it could prevent acts of mass murder in the future.
''I'm disappointed'' that the Legislature has killed the bill, said Cathie Whittenburg of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence, which backed the proposed ban, but she acknowledged that ''the bill needed more crafting'' to protect Bushmaster Firearms and to ensure that the ban would not apply to current gun owners.
Jeff Weinstein of the Maine Gun Owners Association said he anticipated that the Legislature would kill the bill because there is no need for a ban. ''There was no factual substance to the arguments made by the proponents of the bill.''
He said Strimling's push to scale back the ban by exempting existing manufacturers and owners was ''just simply window dressing'' on a bad bill.
A gun-control bill that is still working its way through the Legislature this year would require unlicensed sellers who set up shop at gun shows to do background checks on prospective buyers, just as licensed dealers must do now.
Also pending is a bill that would require parental consent before anyone younger than 18 could buy a rifle or a shotgun. That bill initially called for a 10-day waiting period before anyone younger than 22 could buy any gun, but it has been watered down to a parental-consent bill for the youngest buyers of long guns.
Staff Writer Paul Carrier can be contacted at 622-7511 or at: pcarrier@pressherald.com
Normally, I wouldn't include the reader comment section, but the comments are so delicious that I must. Also, can anyone imagine the KC Star even printing them???---The Webmistress
Reader Comments
Does Maine need an assault weapons ban?
May 17, 2005 1:09 PM
The anti-gun left has been pushing the big “Assault Weapon” lie for almost 2 decades and their misinformation campaign has been repeated so much that it is starting to be taken as truth. This orchestrated, categorical demonization of guns that simply look like military firearms kicked off in the late 1980’s. In a report titled -- "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation", in March of 1989, Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center published the following statement: "Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." Unfortunately many unsuspecting people have fallen prey to this massive disinformation campaign.
It would be nice to point a finger at an inanimate object and blame it for the troubles of the world, but this fantasy is not likely to happen in my lifetime. In reality the guns being proposed in this ban are absolutely no different than any of the average hunting rifles so common all over this fair state. They were built to “look like” their military cousins but in reality they don’t function anything like them. If these particular firearms are any different from traditional looking hunting and target rifles it is their ballistic inferiority. In the movies they are very fast and powerful. In real life they are EXACTLY the same as that boring looking wooded hunting rifle but MUCH less powerful as a rule.
Going a step further, we have no problem with firearms of any type in Maine. For this ridiculous “solution” to be adopted there must be a problem requiring the “solution” first, thus the big “Assault Weapon” Lie. In a report released just last week, Maine ranked last in the entire United States in Violent Crime involving a firearm. Our odds in Maine of being a victim of a firearms related crime is 1 in 14,136 while the National average is 1 in 853. Maine is more than 15 times lower than the national average. Obviously something we are doing is working fine while the states with the strictest gun control laws reap some of the highest crime rates.
While conducting research in this subject I wanted to find some examples of crime involving these so called “assault weapons” and what I found was quite expected. The last incident I found where someone was killed with an “assault weapon” in Maine happened around 25 Central Street in Bangor in front of Dakin’s Sporting Goods. The two men shot and killed were No. 1 Public Enemy Al Brady and his sidekick Clarence Shaffer. They were killed by FBI agents armed with Thompson Submachine Guns, while resisting arrest on October 12, 1937.
I never thought I would see a newspaper, something that operates solely due to the 1st Amendment, endorse something infringing on the 2nd Amendment to the point of planned confiscation, forfeiture and seizure of legally owned private property. Disappointed? Yes. Surprised? Unfortunately no.
Mat of Skowhegan, ME
May 17, 2005 12:51 PM
Beware citizens; the first action of an oppressive regime is to
disarm its citizens.
Our forefathers thought of this and for that reason gave us as
citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
The reasons at that time were sound; we were engaged in a
revolution, and our forefathers recognized that absolute power
corrupts absolutely.
They provided our right to keep and bear arms as a check to
governmental power, knowing that if the populace maintained the
ability to overthrow the government though force of arms it would
lessen if not eliminate the abuses our people had suffered at the
hands of overseas regimes, abuses that at that time were very fresh
in everyone’s memories.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the varieties of
weapons available.
When the Constitution was written it is true that people only had
muskets, oh and I might add cannon, pistols, grenades, etc...
SO WHAT! At that time those weapons were bleeding edge war fighting
technology.
In closing I'd like to indicate in the strongest possible way that I
in no way advocate nor support overthrowing our government though
force or arms. As I see it the systems of checks and balances that
our forefathers created are working as viably today as they did
during their era.
I may not agree with what gun control advocates are saying, but I
will defend their right to say it to the death.
GOD BLESSES AMERICA, The greatest nation & government on earth!
jim verdolini of PORTLAND, ME
May 17, 2005 12:51 PM
Why do seemingly none of the Gun Control types ever seem to pay any
attention to their oath of office? They swear to uphold and protect
the state constitution yet every session there they are trying their
very best to subvert that which they have sworn to uphold.
When will they get the signal. The public is overwhelmingly against
this sort of thing yet there they are hoping some ill informed
legislators will join their crusade.
Why do they want these things? The National Academy of Science
advised, in a study funded by the gun control world, that they could
not find a single gun control measure that has had a positive effect
on violent crime, suicide, or accidents. None!
Compare that to the record in the places where they have banned
guns. Violent crime in the UK is up over 100% in under 8 years. Gun
crime has nearly doubled. It is the same in Australia and South
Africa. In Jamaica the gun crime rate rose over 1000% (yes
thousand). Why do they insist on this nonsense?
I can only believe it is simply an exercise of power and self
indulgence. They will 'feel better' if everyone else is less safe
and if a constitutional right is eliminated.
To gun grabbers, how they feel trumps law, statistics, and righst
anyday.
Tom C of Brunswick, ME
May 17, 2005 12:45 PM
Ethan Strimling brought a bill from the legislature that he took
from someone else and he submitted it without really understanding
what it was.
It brought out huge public resistance and Strimling was unable to
defend the bill before the committee, he couldn't support his
assertions and before the day was done some, if not all, of the
co-sponsors withdrew their support.
Strimling was uninformed, ignorant and completely out of touch with
the people of Maine.
However, those seems to be the main qualifications that he offers
for a his re-election try.
The folks in Portland might want to increase their expectations
somewhat. I am sure there are better candidates available.