What are your reason(s) against background checks?

So a screwball with no criminal history goes threw the “ new background check “ buys a gun does evil with it. So now what ? The politicians can say , we tried !, maybe next time ! What are they doing about the real issue ? Mental health !
 
That's Saco, Maine, and appears to be strictly related to discharging firearms (or blanks) in city limits, that kind of restriction is specifically allowed under Maine's state preemption law.
As I said before, some towns have discharge ordinances within urban or built-up areas, which the Maine Constitution allows. There are numerous exceptions within these ordinances that protect individuals who fire a gun in self-defense.
And yes, namedpipes, that sign is/was rather vague.



PREEMPTION STATUTE

The Maine Legislature has adopted an express preemption statute. Section 2011 of title 25 of Maine Rev. Stat. provides:

1. Preemption. The State intends to occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation concerning the regulation of firearms, components, ammunition and supplies. Except as provided in subsection 3, any existing or future order, ordinance, rule or regulation in this field of any political subdivision of the State is void.

2. Regulation restricted. Except as provided in subsection 3, no political subdivision of the State, including, but not limited to, municipalities, counties, townships and village corporations, may adopt any order, ordinance, rule or regulation concerning the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration, taxation or any other matter pertaining to firearms, components, ammunition or supplies.

The adoption of express preemption rendered invalid many local ordinances regulating firearms.1 In addition to affecting regulations by cities and counties, section 2011 preempts firearms regulations by municipal agencies or authorities.2

EXCEPTIONS
Political subdivisions in Maine are allowed to enact ordinances that:

  • Conform exactly with state law3
  • Regulate firearm discharge4
Law enforcement agencies also retain the authority “to regulate the type and use of firearms” issued to its employees.5

INTERPRETATION
As of the date this page was last updated, Giffords Law Center is not aware of any significant case law interpreting these statutes.

OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Maine also limits local regulation of shooting ranges. A municipal noise control or other ordinance may not require or be applied so as to require a sport shooting range to limit or eliminate shooting activities that have occurred on a regular basis at the range prior to the enactment date of the ordinance, as long as the range conforms to generally accepted gun safety and shooting range operation practices or is constructed in a manner not reasonably expected to allow a projectile to cross the boundary of the range.6 Subject to some limitations, local governments are allowed, however, to regulate the location and construction of new sport shooting ranges or substantial change in use of existing ranges on or after September 1, 2016.7

Further, a 2017 law prohibits local governments (as well as state agencies) in Maine from keeping, or causing to be kept, a list or registry of privately owned firearms or firearm owners within their jurisdiction.8

IMMUNITY
For state laws prohibiting local units of government (i.e., cities and counties) from filing certain types of lawsuits against the gun industry, see our page on Immunity Statutes in Maine.
 
My favorite: "less than 3% of failed background checks are investigated"

Why would you be willing to pay money to expand a program in any way which is not properly managed?

I asked a lib the other day if they would keep buying things from Amazon if only 3% of the products they purchased arrived at their house.

We don't specifically know if background checks do work. Part of that unknown is the lack of data following up on the fails already in the system.

We do not know how many crimes the existing process stopped.

It is hard to say whether they work. Just as it is hard to properly calculate DGUs for accurate reporting of how many lives guns save every year in the hands of citizens.

Making farting in public illegal will not stop people from farting in public. Spending a few billion dollars requiring more background checks without any data supporting them (since failures aren't investigated) is like stopping farts without that underware stuff which deoderizes farts being invented.

Need that data to have any opinion other than... 3% isn't even an F.

It doesn't matter if it works or it doesn't because it has never been about that.
It's about a federal registry.
 
Back
Top Bottom