Maine’s far left lawmakers are advocating for a series of gun control bills in response to the Oct. 25 mass shooting in Lewiston, including limiting magazine capacity for all firearms to just five rounds.
However, it’s far from certain that any of the proposals in question would have stopped Robert R. Card, Jr.’s brutal killing spree, which gun control advocates are leveraging in pursuit of long-sought gun control policies.
The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee met on Thursday for a public hearing on two bills, both of which would impose new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners without altering the circumstances under which Card was able to obtain and use firearms.
“This legislation is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to the events of October 25, and exploitation, in my opinion, of the victims, and a feel good measure to the destroyed families that were left behind,” said Alicia Collins, a Sydney selectman speaking against the bills.
The bills, LD 2224 and LD 2238, were both sponsored by Sen. Margaret Rotundo (D-Androscoggin).
“As a legislator, I cannot do anything to bring back the lives of the grandparents, parents, children, friends, and neighbors who lost their lives on October 25,” said Sen. Rotundo, presenting the bills, “What I can do is to do everything in my power as a legislator to put laws in place that help reduce the level of gun violence in our state.”
LD 2238, which received support from numerous Democrat co-sponsors, would impose a mandatory 72-hour waiting period for anyone seeking to purchase a firearm.
After agreeing to purchase a gun, the firearm dealer would be legally required to wait an arbitrary three-day period before delivering the firearm to the buyer, unless the buyer is a member of law enforcement, another firearm dealer, or a security contractor.
The law does not require any additional background checks during the waiting period.
“The purpose of requiring a waiting period is to provide the purchaser with a cooling-off period… it’s to help to protect the purchaser from acting on a short-lived impulse,” said Rotundo.
A three-day waiting period would not have done anything to prevent the Lewiston shooting, as the shooter, Card, was in possession of his firearms far longer than three days before the shootings. His violent and volatile nature was also known to the U.S. military and multiple law enforcement officers prior to the shooting.
It is unclear how an arbitrary delay in gun purchases would prevent future shootings, although the bill’s sponsor claimed studies claiming that there were fewer homicides and suicides in states with waiting periods.
Violations of the waiting period would carry a $200-$500 fine, and, for subsequent offenses, fines up to $1,000.
The other bill, LD 2224, originally a governor’s bill proposed by Gov. Janet Mills (D), imposes a number of new restrictions.
Under Gov. Mils’ bill, a private citizen seeking to sell a firearm, except to friends and family, would be prohibited from doing so unless he involves a licensed firearm dealer, who will then be required to perform an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System check on the buyer.
The firearm dealer would also be permitted to charge a “reasonable fee” for running a background check.
Mills’ bill also expands the state’s “yellow flag” laws and allows law enforcement to receive warrants to take Mainer’s into protective custody if the person is suspected to pose an “extreme risk” in the future, essentially allowing police to take someone into custody for a possible future crime.
As written, the bill requires that someone taken into protective custody be given a mental health exam before being officially marked as an extreme risk and having their firearms confiscated.
Many of the people speaking in favor of the bill, including multiple mental health professionals, argued that the bill does not go far enough, and asked that the need for a mental health exam be removed.
“It is stigmatizing, and it’s inaccurate about mental illness; it excludes people who are a threat who are not mentally ill; it makes using the law more complicated and less efficient; it leaves out family members, and it is unnecessary,” said David Moltz, representing the Maine Association of Psychiatric Physicians
This would allow law enforcement to remove someone’s Second Amendment rights on suspicion of future crime, without even requiring the person to be deemed mentally ill.
Multiple experts have agreed that Card should have triggered Maine’s existing Yellow Flag law. So it’s unclear how a more strict version of that law would have prevented the Lewiston shooting without law enforcement officers willing to use it.
Thursday’s hearings followed two other gun control hearings in the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, which saw gun-control activists calling for extreme restrictions, such as restricting all magazines to five rounds.
“I would like to see not only a prohibition on bump stocks, but also small magazine limits and a complete prohibition of military style weapons design to spray bullets as rapidly as possible,” said Hilary Shende of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition.
When asked what she considered a large magazine, she said “anything larger than five rounds, because that’s what a deer is allowed.”
Gomer Pyle voice: Surprise, Surprise, Surprise. No accountability for all the government level errors, just punishment for those who did nothing wrong. On the cool off period….how about applying that to abortions and see what response there would be.
No problem…my thirty round clip identifies as being only five rounds.
Let’s not pretend it’s only “far left liberals” who have a problem with the gun manufacturers and insurrectionists blocking sensible gun reforms. The overwhelming majority wants gun reform of one kind or another, and that includes non-MAGA Republicans and moderates.
It’s not a knee jerk reaction.
It’s the much loved “never let a crisis go to waste” excuse to impose more restrictive laws on free citizens.
It takes a whole 3 seconds to change a magazine. A 5 round limit is useless.
So are all the other things proposed in this mess.
Notice they do nothing to suggest that doctors and hospitals and big pharma do something to curb the over prescribing of psych drugs that carry all kinds of warnings of feeling of suicide and the like.
Too much money in that.
There is nothing Liberal about them, they are progressive control freaks.
Great way to pi.. off hunters and sportsman. Election day is smack in the middle of hunting season. I bet the libs didn’t think about this. That will motivate them to go out and vote.
Interesting how the readers of MaineWire downvote facts. The majority of the country wants sensible gun control, and it is not limited to liberals, as the deceitful article says. https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx
@Andy K: hunters are already limited in the size of the magazine that they can use which is either 4 or 5 rounds.
As usual, gun grabbers hope to punish law-abiding citizens while ignoring criminal behavior and existing law. Their only goal is to eventually disarm the general public; think Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao. Only then will they be able to implement their totalitarian dream.
As usual, those who are willing to break the law will ignore it. And those who obey the law will be targets.
As for the polls that claim most Americans want stricter gun laws, I am on the Gallup panel and the way they ask questions is very leading and usually worded or only offering choices for answers as to what they want to hear.
For instance, one poll I answered asked what the biggest concern was in the country and open borders and illegal immigration weren’t given as choices.
For instance, here’s a poll that shows the opposite:
Over 80% Of Americans Say Gun Control Laws Did Nothing to Reduce Crime or Made Big Cities More Dangerous – The Truth About Guns
@ML Collucci, that wasn’t my point. It isn’t about the number of rounds, it is about control on firearms and rights. Hunters are sportsman and are sick and tired of being targeted. A 5 round magazine, if it even exists, is not going to stop a criminal nut from a mental shooting spree. They won’t follow the law. I will not abide by any limit that will undermine my protection. If 2 or 3 carjacking punks team up on me, I need more than 5 rounds to protect myself.
I doubt any county sheriff in Maine will enforce a 5 round limit.
@ME Skeptic: I assume that the reason readers of the Maine Wire down vote gun control propaganda is that per capita Maine has I believe the second highest gun ownership rates in the country while having also one of the lowest firearm related violent crime statistics. And the majority of the crimes that do take place happen in democrat controlled areas. So perhaps we should have democrat control instead….
@Andy K: First off you are preaching to the choir. I carry a hand gun with a seventeen round mag for many of the reasons that you stated. My comment about hunters is that this proposal does not additionally affect them with them already being limited in mag capacity, and will not make them vote any different than they already do.
I think hunters don’t want or support any type of gun control measures. The folks who are part of the hunting culture are also freedom loving defenders of gun rights. We need all the help we can get this fall to vote for freedom loving representatives. Don’t take anything for granted. If you feel a new gun control measure doesn’t really affect you now, the next one will. Muzzle loader only, shotgun only for deer like in Mass, steel shot only, etc. Don’t give the crazy lefties any leeway.
isn’t it strange that all the Maine Gun Safety Directors are from Maine seacoast towns ? Not a very good representation of the state of Maine.