Former Brunswick councilor now campaigns for gun control

  • Mail this page!
  • Delicious
  • -6

BRUNSWICK — Before her 6-year-old son goes to play at a new friend’s house, Jacqueline Sartoris asks the parents if there’s a gun in the house.

It’s not because she’s particularly averse to guns, the Bowdoin street resident said Tuesday. Her father was an FBI agent, and she and her sisters grew up with a gun in the house.

“And I don’t know of … any man in my family that does not own a gun,” Sartoris added.

But after the Newtown, Connecticut, shootings in 2012, when a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, she said the threat of gun violence just felt closer than ever before.

“My son was 3 years old when the shooting at Sandy Hook school occurred. … I have older kids, and never once when I took them to elementary school did I have to wonder whether they were safe,” she said. “Now I do.”

Sartoris is now the primary organizer in Brunswick for the Maine chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a national group that advocates for gun control measures.

In Maine, the state chapter is collecting signatures to get a question on the November 2016 ballot to close what they call a “loophole” in the law regulating criminal background checks on gun sales in the state.

Currently, federal law only requires background checks on sales by licensed gun dealers. Checks are not required of buyers of guns in private sales, at gun shows, or through classified ads from unlicensed dealers.

“Most people are unaware of this big background-check loophole,” Sartoris said. “When they hear, they’re surprised, dismayed, and want to do something.”

The group’s initiative, if approved by voters, would require that all gun sales in Maine include a background check at a licensed dealer, with “reasonable” exceptions for family, hunting and self-defense, according to the organization’s website.

The group was cleared in October by the secretary of state to collect signatures, and must secure more than 61,000 before Jan. 22, 2016, to get the measure on the ballot.

Sartoris said she fully expects it will meet the deadline.

On Election Day, she and other volunteers were at the polls gathering signatures for their petition. “When we explained (the measure) to them, people would turn around … and come back just to sign it,” she said.

In all of her organizing experience – Sartoris is an attorney and former four-term town councilor who last year lost the Democratic primary in state House District 50 by nine votes – she said she had “never seen anything like the enthusiasm we saw.”

“We expected to get 7,000 signatures, and we got over 10,000” statewide, she added.

On Tuesday, organizing manager Beth Allen said more than 100 volunteers gathered more than 11,000 signatures around the state.

In Brunswick, more than 1,000 people signed the petition at the polls, meaning about one-third of voters who turned out for the Nov. 3 election put their names on the petition.

In other parts of the state, though, viewpoints on the issue clashed on Election Day. In Portland, members of Project Dirigo were widely publicized videotaping voters signing the petition at the polls.

Gun Owners of Maine, a nonprofit “dedicated to defending and promoting the gun rights of Mainers,” issued a statement online after the petition group filed with the state, saying, “Gun rights in Maine are under attack” and calling the measure “a very serious assault on our liberties by those who would turn us into anothr (sic) New York or Chicago.”

Ed Hardy, sales manager of C&R Trading Post in Brunswick, a licensed gun dealer, said the measure is “not needed” and “not able to be enforced.”

“To tell an individual ‘I can’t swap with my buddy’ … that’s a tremendous amount of paperwork for really no (result),” Hardy said Wednesday. “It’s not going to stop criminals (from getting guns).”

“I just think it’s an awful waste of time and money,” he added.

Money has already started flowing into the campaign. According to state filings, all $250,000 of the group’s initial contributions have come from the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, the gun control advocacy group funded heavily by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

In an email, Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said, “This is just another example of billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s drive to impose a New York-style gun control agenda on the rest of the country.”

“What they don’t bother telling you is that Maine has the second-lowest murder rate in the nation and the only state that’s safer – Vermont – doesn’t have any of the restrictive laws this group wants to impose upon the law-abiding gun owners of Maine,” he added.

Sartoris said Tuesday that she could not speak to the specifics of how campaign funds will be used, because she is a volunteer and not a staff member. But “given that we know money is going to pour into the other side … it’s naive to think we could do it all with no funding of any kind.”

Sartoris said, however, that she believes the public already shares her group’s position.

“Polling shows that 74 percent of NRA members support universal background checks,” she said, invoking a popularly cited poll by the online polling research company GfK Knowledge Networks.

“I know NRA members,” she added. “They’re supportive of background checks.”

Sartoris said she and other Brunswick volunteers will now start organizing days they will be at the post office with petitions.

“Almost every day over the last two weeks a child has been killed by a gun,” she said. “This is not a toll we can look away from.”

Walter Wuthmann can be reached at 781-3661 ext. 100 or Follow Walter on Twitter: @wwuthmann.

Bowdoin street resident Jackie Sartoris sits at her home Nov. 10 with a signed petition for background checks on all gun sales in Maine. Sartoris is the lead organizer in Brunswick for Maine Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.


Brunswick/Harpswell reporter for The Forecaster. Bowdoin College grad, San Francisco Bay Area native. Follow for municipal, school, community, and environmental news from the Midcoast.

  • Anonymous

    I bet a lot of that so called “support” would melt away if those polled knew this meant a background check was required for using someone else’s firearm(s) instead of just for buying it.

    Requiring checks for a legitimate trade seems rather pointless too. Most people, when presented the facts, know that laws proposed like these only punish the law abiding for not agreeing with the gun grabbers.

  • ml_Oath

    This type of awful legislation was recently passed in my home state of Washington (I-594). It makes it a crime to share firearms while shooting on public or private property without a background check for each transfer of possession (not ownership). This does nothing but attempt to end any and all firearms culture in the State, and makes it logistically impossible to even introduce firearms to new shooters. The positive is that since it’s a clear violation of our state Constitution (Article 1 Section 24) its not being enforced, has zero arrest, and zero prosecutions (it’s like the TSA….just security theater). Don’t let your state fall into the Bloomberg trap regardless of what the one party involved in these fiascos is spewing.

  • Chew H Bird

    This level of legislation is insanity. While I do support some sensible and non-intrusive regulation to satisfy those against gun ownership, this level of intrusiveness is the left wing equivalent of having municipal provided M-16s as a free Welcome Wagon gift with every house sale. Wow… As I recall, Ms. Sartoris is the person who ramrodded the Mere Point boat launch into reality using inaccurate numbers on upkeep. Not that I dislike the boat launch (it is wonderful), but her methods of making it happen were the exact opposite of “transparent”.

    • Diamondback

      “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” and I don’t give a shiot about “satisfying” any wannabe tyrant USURPERS

      • SamAdams1776

        You get it!

        SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
        Molon Labe
        No Fort Sumters
        Qui tacet consentit
        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
        Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
        Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, c u m pars servitutis esset

    • SamAdams1776

      I accept NO regulation. PERIOD! The danger of tyranny is too high.

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      No Fort Sumters
      Qui tacet consentit
      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, c u m pars servitutis esset

  • BD Barney

    To bad she hasn’t figured out yet that those ‘loopholes’ she is parroting from Bloombert/Everytown are full of cobwebs. If she took the time, she’d learn that criminals avoid these private sales as they don’t want to get caught and go to jail! (imagine that).

    If they buy thru a private stranger, they are far more likely to encounter an individual more likely to cooperate with police than not. That’s why the criminals use straw purchases and black market sales to get what they want.

    Unfortunately, Bloomberg is not spending his millions to let that part of the truth be told.

  • Maine Rifleman

    Why must the press continually lie and mislead people about what this proposal is and what it will and will not do? It’s a page and a half long; either they are not reading it or they are intentionally deceptive. If you have to lie to get a law passed, it’s a bad law.

  • Troy Scott

    The best advice is that any person signing a petition needs to read the actual law not just what someone tells you it is. Get a copy of the actual law as will be on the ballot. The Manchin Toomey so call “background check” bill had all kinds of gun control hidden within its 8700+ words.

    • Nathan S.

      Read Maine law and the language of the initiative. It is far worse than some volunteer petitioners say it is.

  • tom2

    Big background-check loophole? She must not have been to a gun show recently or she’d know private sales don’t occur there anymore. Over the past 20 years, I’ve only seen one firearm for sale by a private individual. It was an M-1 rifle that looked like it had suffered continuous combat since Iwo Jima and the price was $1,700. The owner left with it. Used firearms sellers are totally intimidated and generally keep them or sell occasionally to dealers. What Sartoris seems to have missed is her colleagues don’t really care about private sales because they’re radical leftists more than they are moms. They know universal background checks generate records necessary to maintain a registry of personal activity.

    This effort is just an interim step toward confiscation. Leftists want to register you because they don’t trust you. To control you, they need to keep tabs on you. So they register you, again and again, for each time you loan or hand your firearm to another, for each time you borrow a firearm, for each time you sell one, buy one, bequeath one, lose one, gift one, load one with too many bullets or even if you do any of these things with one that seems “ugly” to them. And they already know about transfers between strangers. What they really want to keep tabs on are transfers between mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, cousins, friends, and neighbors. They’ve already begun with widows. Eventually they’ll have enough dirt on everyone to invoke total confiscation.

    • ActualCommonSense1

      Registration can’t, by nature, prevent any crime. Whatsoever.
      It’s a number either written on a paper, filed away, or typed in a computer, and saved on a HDD.
      And the guise of claiming it’s to help you recover it if it’s stolen, well that makes no sense. If I simply take a picture of my gun, then if it’s ever stolen, I just turn that picture in. No need to previously register it (plus my insurance covers it’s value).

    • LeoRising

      As I noted above, “borrowing” or “loaning” is not part of this initiative. Family sales are EXEMPT. I am a volunteer petitioner who has taken the time to ask questions and read the language. Every sale — thru Uncle Henry’s or as a private seller at a show — would involve checking for criminal record, ONLY. Instead of meeting in a stranger’s house or garage, the two parties meet at a dealer and use their database. TO anyone who MIGHT be on the fence here, this is for you, before I depart this crazy page. Hard to believe folks think this is about “getting your guns.” If the goverment ever “comes for your guns,” you’re doing to need a lot more than a gun to stop them.

      • Nathan S.

        Read the language again. It references current Maine law that defines a transfer as;
        Title 17-A, Part2, Ch. 23, ss 554-A 1.A. “Transfer” means to sell, furnish, give, lend, deliver or otherwise provide, with or without consideration. [1995, c. 263, §3 (NEW).]

        So while you are technically correct that “borrowing” or “loaning” is not part of the initiative both will ultimately be covered should it become law. It will cover EVERY transfer, including loans, except those narrowly defined exceptions.

        Hard to believe folks don’t do their homework.

        • Constant

          There is a specific exemption in the proposal for borrowing. It will not “ultimately be covered.” Do your homework.

          • Nathan S.

            Sure there are, and they are VERY narrowly defined. So narrow in fact that a whole host of currently perfectly moral activities will become a criminal act.

      • tom2

        We’d have believed your comment if you had written, “…”borrowing” or “loaning” is not part of this initiative…” YET. You swallow too much of today’s propaganda and read too little of history’s propaganda.

      • jarhead1982

        You communist traitors are pathological lying punks through and through…..

  • BMA

    As expected from the press, this article fails to tell the whole story. The proposition also covers ALL transfers too. The exemptions are extremely restrictive and every day activities we do here in Maine is going make tons of instant criminals out of normal folks. The 100 volunteers is just an outright lie, 90% of the signature gatherers are paid employees, 12-15$ a hour. Moms Demand Action claim to be a grass roots organization but receive all funding from a single source, Micheal Bloomberg. All of the officers are out of state transplants. That is not grassroots, this is a political action committee that does not have the interests of the people of Maine at heart. We don’t need a new law that doesn’t stop criminals but does put innocent people in jail for no reason.

  • john

    The gun show loophole is largely a myth (most sellers at gun shows have FFL and are required to do a NICS check), and a tiny fraction of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. That said, aside from Sandy Hook, the mother passed, ALL the major mass shooters have undergone NICS background checks. The chance that any lives would be saved by expanding this system is negligible. The main problem with the gun control movement is that they have no answers, at least none that are compatible with the constitution. Ms. Sartoris would do much more for society and “gun violence” by volunteering for mental health services, literacy programs, or drug treatment rather than being a Bloomberg puppet. She is tirelessly working to solve a problem that doesn’t exist in Maine.

  • Sigmond Sauer

    The proposed language can be found here:

    Typical feel-good bologna that will do NOTHING to reduce crime. All this does is punish law-abiding citizens.

    Maine is an incredibly safe state. This clown wants us to believe otherwise.

  • FortitudineVincimus

    “she said the threat of gun violence just felt closer than ever before” – all the more reason to arm yourself. And campaigning on gun control often does not go well as then the politician starts to find out what most of their voters REALLY believe.. and they believe in the value of the 2A.

    There were dozens of laws and rules on the books that should have stopped Sandy Hook and every other attack… but they did not. Why? The reason is, mentally ill and criminals do NOT CARE about laws. Only law abiding citizens cares about laws and follow them. So what does adding more laws hope to do other than to make it harder on law abiding citizens to express their 2A rights Nothing.

    I suggest anyone here throw their email into the ring to win a FREE AR15 this weekend that is being givern away online at – arm yourselves while you can legally.

  • jsmith5893

    Re: “closing the gun-show loophole”

    There is no gun show loophole. This is progressive speak for wanting to pass laws to monitor and control loans, transfers or physical access of firearms, ammunition, or “high capacity” magazines to distant relatives, friends, domestic partners, roommates or other acquaintances you have known for years. You can see this philosophy reflected in the laws passed in OR, CO and WA. Since many of these affected people are single and in a rising demographic, opponents of this law should publicize the fact to these people that if they have or want to have firearms, they could be inadvertently breaking the law with their living arrangements and be subject to intimidation and entrapment by overzealous and unscrupulous authorities who are aligned with an anti-gun agenda. Also, if you are really worried about gun shows you should change the rule implemented by Bill Clinton’s administration that prohibits anyone wanting to sell guns at gun shows from getting a Federal Firearms License (FFL) without having a storefront. (Google ATF form 5310 FFL application and look at question 18a)

    If the totality of what is really desired is universal background checks, the answer is simple and easy – give anyone free, anonymous, public access to the federal NICS background check database of persons prohibited from owning firearms and then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain a piece of paper that documents you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. There is no reason to get the government involved any further in the process unless you have other goals in mind like a federal registry of all firearms.

  • jsmith5893

    Re: ”Jacqueline Sartoris asks the parents if there’s a gun in the house”

    Ms. Sartoris should review the section on anxiety disorders on page 189 in the latest DSM manual (DSM 5) and decide if mental health treatment or therapy is warranted for her apparent phobia related to firearms.

  • jsmith5893

    Re: “Polling shows that 74 percent of NRA members support universal background checks”

    I don’t doubt there are polls that state that, but I doubt the conclusions are correct. See Also, these polls where large numbers of people support background checks ask questions like “Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gunbuyers “? That is not the same question that is relevant with regard to the laws that are actually proposed like the federal gun legislation that failed to pass the US Senate in 2013. The relevant poll question in that case would have been “do you support or oppose US Senate Bill 649 or any of its amendments”? Read the bill (SB-649) and the amendments. The title of the bill is word doctored to be innocuous but the devil is in the details and what was being proposed as part of the background check process was a litany of vague, abstruse and onerous restrictions on friends and family members that could trip them up and subject them to intimidation and entrapment by overzealous and unscrupulous authorities who are aligned with an anti-gun agenda. In addition, the hastily written Toomey amendment was worded in such a way that existing gun laws that currently protect gun owners (like a prohibiting a registry) could be circumvented by the President simply having the BATF report to DHS instead of the Attorney General.

  • jsmith5893

    Re: “Almost every day over the last two weeks a child has been killed by a gun,” she said. “This is not a toll we can look away from.”

    According to the CDC in 2013 there were about 11208 people murdered by firearms in the US which works out to about 31 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 319 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 28,000 people being murdered by a firearm. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 28,000 people. To me, 1 in 28,000 is an acceptable cost to help ensure the security of a free state and the right to own a firearm that has harmed no one. It is also estimated there are 70 million gun owners in the US which means on any given day 69,999,969 gun owners didn’t kill anyone yet because the news media magnifies these relatively isolated and infrequent events to the level of an epidemic, the anti-gun folks answer is to take the guns away from people who harmed no one. The number of homicides with a firearm will never be zero. So given the fact that deranged individuals and murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race and we currently live in a free society, what number would ever satisfy you to the point you would say “we don’t need any more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms”?

    • Constant

      You have left out the deaths that are not classified as “murders.” On average, 88 people a day die from gun violence in the US. A child shooting another child with a found handgun is not a “murder” according to the CDC.

      • jsmith5893

        Re: “You have left out the deaths that are not classified as “murders.” ”

        According to the CDC in 2013, 11208 people were murdered by firearms, 505 were killed accidentally and 281 died from firearms with undetermined intent. This works out to 11994 per year or 33 per day. I left out the suicides by firearms (21175) because it’s a matter of individual choice where the person can pick the time, place and method and an argument can be made that a person’s life belongs to them exclusively and not you, the State, or anyone else. Also, banning or restricting firearms will not stop suicides as there are plenty of other options which is evidenced by the fact that in 2013 almost as many people (19974) committed suicide by methods other than firearms.

      • jarhead1982

        Horrible how per US govt. data that 97.3% of those killed by illegal use of a gun were committed by felons, career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies, domestic violence abusers and illegal aliens who were not lawful gun owners to begin with……

        The New York times gun report created in 2012 by anti gunterd editor of the NYTimes Joe Nocera, was created to embarrass gun owners. Funniest thing was, it was shuttered in 2013 because
        people started noting police reports on the comments section of each death and it turned out virtually all were criminals shooting criminals, and the 100 kids they listed, 97 lived in homes with criminals.

        When the times lists a 20 year old “child” shot and killed, and people with access to arrest records note that the “child” has five arrests for gang activity the NYT has a problem with its spinning.

        The first child death they covered in my state, a 4-year-old was living in the home where his mother was living with a boyfriend who had a prior murder conviction. He was high on crack and shot the kid by accident with his illegal gun.

        The NYT’s problem was what it really showed is almost all gun
        death is about criminal’s killing each other or homes with criminals being dangerous to other occupants. guns don’t elevate danger at all, criminals do.

        Why is it you arrogant anti gun terrorists cant provide any real govt. cites or data to prove this isnt true in any of the other 50 states

  • I have no problem with parents such as Jacqueline Sartoris asking me if I have guns in my home before their children come over. It just puts me on notice than they know their little rugrats are the type who go rummaging thru my closets and private areas when I am not looking. It beats me having to find that out by myself after things disappear.

  • Diamondback

    Any “sworn officer” who openly advocates against the Constitution and their sacred oath of fidelity thereto, is known as an USURPER and deserves the treatment due thereto – hanging by the neck until dead or other appropriate disposition.

  • Cracker Jack

    If you still have your pumpkin on the front porch 11 days after Halloween I cannot take you seriously.

  • SamAdams1776

    I don’t need government permission to sell my home, my motorcycle and my car—why should I need that for any of my property?

    There is not a SINGLE gun regulating that is constitutional and for the record, the Second Amendment does not grant me the right to keep and bear arms–in fact the Bill of Rights as a whole grants no rights; it LIMITS government from interfering with rights I have NATURALLY that are pre-existing.

    The Preamble states the purpose of the Bill of Rights–to restrict government. In the case of the Second Amendment, that restriction is TOTAL. No exceptions. Since the purpose of PROTECTING the natural right to keep and bear arms is to ensure the people can overthrow tyranny.

    Background checks have one purpose–to telegraph to the government where to go to confiscate the civilian guns. NO!

    Any NRA member (seriously?????) that thinks background checks are a good idea needs a thump on the side of the head and an education on tyranny.

    SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
    Molon Labe
    No Fort Sumters
    Qui tacet consentit
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, c u m pars servitutis esset

    • Chew H Bird

      We need government permission to become legally married (marriage license). We need government permission to cross our borders (passport). We need government permission (age verification) to drink or smoke. We need government permission (permits) to built or upgrade a house. We need government permission (social security card) in order to legally work. Depending on the job we may be required to have a background check performed (in Maine, educators are fingerprinted).

      • SamAdams1776

        Two things:

        1. Each item I addressed had to do with purchasing or disposing of property, for which I need no government permission.

        2. What makes you think it’s right that government should be charging licenses and fees so that I can make an improvement to my own home? Or to charge a license fee the practice of profession, when the free market can determine whether or not I’m competent to practice that profession?

        Looks to me like you have a real Liberty problem and look to the state for everything.

        The fact is the second Amendment completely prohibits government regulation on firearms period!

        And is far as judicial review of the Constitutionality of laws, that power was stolen by the Supreme Court in 1803 in Marbury vs Madison. And Thomas Jefferson warned of judicial tyranny with respect to that, and that it was the states that were meant to ratify or nullify federal laws.

        SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
        Molon Labe
        No Fort Sumters
        Qui tacet consentit
        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
        Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
        Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, c u m pars servitutis esset

        • Chew H Bird

          All I did was to mention items that require government “approval”. Personally it does not bother me if my neighbors have an armory and a gun range next door. My real concern is not about the right to have guns, but the ultimate conclusion of the debate as each of the perspectives are so far apart that there seems to be no middle ground.

          • SamAdams1776

            How could there be middle ground? Compromise on a principle? What is at stake here is the ability to defend against tyranny. And both sides know this!

            Gun control is not about public safety ( that is the pablum they give out to a gullible public)–it is about control and accelerating their so-called “progressive” agenda without fear os armed revolution.

            SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
            Molon Labe
            No Fort Sumters
            Qui tacet consentit
            Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
            Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
            Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, c u m pars servitutis esset

          • jarhead1982

            So since you morons claim the law is to punish criminals, but it cant do that legally, therefore it is punishing lawful gun owners for crimes they didnt commit…

            You know, all those licenses, fee’s regulatory hoops and BS, registrations, etc,e tc…

            Why dont the criminals pay their fair share eh sweety…

            Oh wait, I got a speeding ticket yesterday, and since you own a car, you are responsible for not collectively preventing me from breaking the law, as a result you will now be
            automatically forced to pay my $500 fine ( I got a lead foot), and take the points on your license as clearly you pating my fine is in no way a punishment…

            Where is my $500 ya cheap ba ssterd

      • jarhead1982

        So which one of those is a guaranteed affirmed right in the constitution, none, you really arent very bright elmer fudd….

  • LeoRising

    Hello — first, can we all be civil to one another? I”m from a gun owning family. However, I support this universal criminal background check, to prevent felons from buying guns EASILY (it won’t prevent it, but will make it more difficult). I am also involved in petitioning, and am NOT PAID. Nobody I know is paid. That’s mistruth Number One! Number Two, this allows families to exchange/sell guns to each other without paper work. Number Three, there is nothing in this law about sharing a gun while you are hunting. This is only in case of sale. It’s for any private seller, at a gun show or on Uncle Henry’s or Craig’s List, requiring that person to follow the same law that licensed dealers have to follow. THAT IS ALL. A private sale would take place at a gun shop, and the buyer/seller would pay a nominal fee to the dealer to run the background check. (You must register your car when you buy it, do the paperwork, get a license. Those are small inconveniences we pay to manage the process.. Same with selling guns. It’s a SMALL INCONVENIECE. ) And my LAST POINT: yes, Maine has low gun-homicide rates, but has higher than average suicide rates — and most are done with guns, too easily obtained. Regarding crime, other New England states like Mass. and NY and NJ are not as safe as ME, and shady folks come here and buy guns for cheap, and then take them to those states and sell them. I’d rather Maine be known for exporting other things. Thank you for listening, and considering another side. NOBODY wants to rescind any rights. It’s about one more layer of safety in regards to who purhases guns. Thanks again.

    • FiftycalTX

      More anti-gun LIES. The ONLY way to conduct a “background check” is to GO to a FFL, have the gun put “on the books” of the FFL, have the FFL call the NICS, WAIT 5 minutes to 3 days and THEN the gun may be transferred, AFTER THE FEE THE FFL WANTS IS PAID! And the gun belongs to the FFL until somebody passes a background check. And NO, there are no “exemptions” for “just a sale”. You CANNOT TOUCH ANOTHER’S GUN without the “background check”.

      • LeoRising

        I won’t visit this page again, but do want to say: You are NOT telling the truth, there is nothing in the background check initiative language about “touching another person’s gun” or borrowing it. You all are a pretty sad lot, thinking that closing one more loophole making it harder for felons to get guns is a problem. Any law-abiding citizin should be RELIEVED to know they are not selling a gun to a criminal. You should consider it your duty. Ok, guys, have at it … carry on about Muslims and “confiscation” (you’ll need more than a GUN if they come for yours) and tyrants and media prostitutes and Marxists. Do you have any idea how nutty you all sound?

        • Nathan S.

          You obviously haven’t read the proposed initiative or Maine law. It DOES include borrowing.

        • ActualCommonSense1

          You fail to realize that at no point, can registration prevent crime. Not one person yet, has been able to refute this fact.
          The extra paperwork, time involved, travel costs and time, as well as other inconveniences are not solving a problem that exists. You claim that there’s a loophole, but it was written to specifically exclude private transfers. Yes, transfer, by definition, includes touching someone else’s gun. It’s call possession, and if it’s like every other document drafted up with the guise of “public safety”, it has no logical “safety” parts included.
          We’re glad to explain why you’re wrong, but you preemptively explaining that you won’t visit again shows us you’re not in it for the long run.
          I am.

        • jarhead1982

          That what they said in washington state and all over and they lied, and youre lying too….

          Why should ANYONE believe anti gunterds being the proven pathological lying communists you are eh…..

    • jarhead1982

      Why should we be civil to such a blatant attack upon our rights you anti gun shill and you dont own any guns, as only anti gun morons start their rants and lies off the way you did…..

      Maybe you should pull your head out of your masters wrecktum and provide proof that private sales from lawful gun owners are such a problem sweety….

  • ramrodd

    The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus
    the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will
    gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and
    treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – The Second Amendment has nothing to do with
    hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with
    personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated
    safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.
    Only dictators, tyrants, despots,
    totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you
    support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or
    hard-left mainstream
    media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of
    safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying
    about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty,
    personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’
    ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism.
    They are demanding to hold the absolute
    power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other
    five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being
    disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the
    murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

    Their single agenda is to control you after
    you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute
    power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.
    The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who
    infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully
    lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably
    betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed
    population. Unarmed populations have been treated as
    slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

    Will we stand our ground, maintaining our
    constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would
    enslave us?

    American Thinker

  • Constant

    Veterans are on the side of background checks.

    • jsmith5893

      Re: “Veterans are on the side of background checks”

      The problem is all of the laws proposed at both the state and federal level go way beyond background checks on sales by placing restrictions on loans, transfers or physical access of firearms, ammunition, or “high capacity” magazines to distant relatives, friends, domestic partners, roommates or other acquaintances you have known for years.

    • jarhead1982

      Yet more lies as mark kelly is a paid anti gun whoore….

  • FiftycalTX

    “Moms demand attention” cult members will shut up as soon as Bloomberg stops putting money in their pockets. This is just a ploy to make gun owners REGISTER their guns. And once that is done and the “democratic socialists” re-take power, they can either TAX legal guns out of citizens hands or just try to CONFISCATE them.

    • ActualCommonSense1

      Registration can’t be used to prevent any crime. It’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
      Not once, have I heard a valid argument for registration that I can’t easily defeat.

  • Marc Richardson

    I’m wondering how she takes the solemn Oath of Office to support and defend the United States Constitution and then attacks it after getting to work and nobody ever seems to hold her responsible for breaking the Oath of Office.

    Apparently the Oath of Office needs a set of teeth…

  • jsmith5893

    Re: “would require that all gun sales in Maine include a background check at a licensed dealer”

    In Colorado where a similar law was passed in 2013, many dealers (FFLs) refuse to do the checks because (1) they make no money on the transaction (2) it ties up a sales person and the fee the state allows them to charge for doing the service will not cover his time, overhead costs, or the sales lost by not being able to wait on other customers. (3) BATF rules for the transaction require them to temporarily move a privately owned firearm into their inventory which requires paperwork that can be a potential source of errors which will be dinged in a BATF audit (4) The form 4473 they are required to keep on the transaction becomes a potential liability because some BATF inspectors will ding them for nits like abbreviations or illegible entries – and after a certain number of dings, you can loose your license. FFLs put up with all of this as a cost of doing business when they make money selling a firearm but they have found it’s not worth it if all they are doing is the background check.

  • jarhead1982

    We see the the former counselor didn’t follow her morning anti gunterd check list….

    illicit narcotic laced Kookiad bottle full, check….

    gerbils, sufficient number for fell -chin, check…..

    hob nail panties and boots for dancing in innocents blood, check….

    cornholed by your master, check……

    Sanity & brain…whoa, we see you have a couple runners there…..

  • Rob

    Oh no we have a gun problem….wrong. We have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. How about Bloomberg spend his money on mental health issues instead of sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong.