Results 1 to 10 of 18
Maine Gun Owners Association Inc
This is a discussion on Maine Gun Owners Association Inc within the MGOA Maine forums, part of the State Associations category; http://www.mgoa.com/ Maine Gun Owners Association Inc PO Box 373 Yarmouth, ME 04096 207-846-3000 Jeff Weinstein, President George Fogg, Vice President ...
-
06-13-2007, 10:58 PM #1
Maine Gun Owners Association Inc
http://www.mgoa.com/
Maine Gun Owners Association Inc
PO Box 373
Yarmouth, ME 04096
207-846-3000
Jeff Weinstein, President
George Fogg, Vice President
Hal Fairfield, Secretary/Treasurer
Article I, Section 16 of the State of Maine Constitution -- "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."Mass. Gun Laws By and For Non-Lawyers (How To Stay Legal and Out of Trouble) - Seminar
http://home.comcast.net/~safety-instructor
NRA Certified Instructor and Range Officer
We have met the enemy and he is US!
-
03-04-2008, 09:30 AM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 40
the gentleman that runs MGOA is the same one that was pushing for more restrictions on concealed permits . The bill he proposed would have required taking a training class for the initial concealed permit , and again before each renewal . It also would strike down the ability to use a DD214 in place of a training class . He just happens to give those classes , and out of the kindness of his heart , would train trainers (for a fee of course) .
For a "pro rights" org , it seems awfully willing to impose more restrictions on Mainers . Hearing this man speak at the hearing , he almost sounded like he could have been a Brady member .
There's quite a conflict of interest when proposing a bill to require training classes , that just happen to be given (for a fee) by ones self .The Maine Gun Owners Association is sponsoring LD-778, "An Act To Enhance The Qualifications for a (Maine) Concealed Firearms Permit".
http://www.firearmsafety.net/
-
03-04-2008, 04:20 PM #3
I don't think it was so much the organization pushing for the legislation, as the one guy who happened to be the president of the organization. I think I saw one reply by him here. Some people wrote some real nastygrams, but I don't know how many (if any) were MGOA members. The whole thread seems to have died out by last March.
Y'know, it's one of those real "rock vs. hard place" situations. There was one post in the above forum (probably not by a gun owner) to the effect of "I don't see how it can hurt. A little education is a good thing." But another one says "This bill would require a former military small arms champion to take [the] course."
Let's ignore for the moment the conflict of interest part. We want to show that we're responsible gun owners, but any new legislation we even "go along with" can be one more inch of the camel's nose shoved into the tent. "You all agreed that proving you know safe gun handling in order to get your license wasn't a bad idea. Why won't you go along with having serial numbers etched on all your ammunition? It's for the children, you know." {hoss manure smiley here}
-
03-04-2008, 10:17 PM #4
It's one of the crappier websites out there, too. Looks like the ones I built back in the mid 90's.
-
03-05-2008, 08:44 AM #5Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 40
You are correct , but , while speaking at the state house he made sure that our reps knew he was the head of MGOA . He did not disassociate himself from the org and say it was an individual cause . To someone in the room , it appeared to be that MGOA was 100% behind the bill .I don't think it was so much the organization pushing for the legislation, as the one guy who happened to be the president of the organization
I don't know how/where others got their info . I am simply speaking of what I saw/heard at the actual hearing for the bill . Words straight from the mouth of the man .
-
03-05-2008, 02:20 PM #6
I meant to say something about that, his giving the appearance that it was by consensus of the organization, or at least by its executive board. I'm a little surprised the rest of the officers went along with that, or seemed to anyway. I'm sure there were members who weren't happy with it.
-
03-05-2008, 02:33 PM #7
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
If you live in Massachusetts protect your 2nd Amendment rights and donate... Comm2a.org
-
03-05-2008, 07:29 PM #8Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 40
Look , all one has to do is think ....
Who gains from this law?
What supposed problem does this law propose to fix or alleviate ?
Does it further restrict a right ?
MGOA could be a good group for Mainers , but not when it's leader(s) propose laws that essentially would put them personally at a great financial gain , while making it harder for Maine gun owners .
Just my opinion from observation . YMMV
-
03-05-2008, 11:05 PM #9
I don't disagree with ya. I'm just a little surprised the other officers and members didn't land on Mr. Prez. Maybe they didn't have time to call an emergency meeting and ask him "What the hell were you thinking?" Or he got enough of them convinced that it was the right thing to do.
"Here, have some of this nice Kool-Aid."
"Okey-dokey, Mr. Prez. Whatever you say."
-
03-06-2008, 08:10 AM #10
The members should be demanding his resignation.
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
If you live in Massachusetts protect your 2nd Amendment rights and donate... Comm2a.org


Reply With Quote







