November 13, 2018

Maine: LD 31 has been brought back from the dead today

SAM ILA — LEGISLATIVE ALERT 

Attention! Attention! Attention!

LD 31 has been brought back from the dead today – Call Your Legislator!

The SAM ILA’s Bill, LD 31, RESOLUTION, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Maine To Require That Signatures on a Direct Initiative of Legislation Come from Each Congressional District is back from the dead and could be re-voted today and tomorrow in the House and the Senate.

Democrats have offered to support LD 31 as a way to kick start negotiations and end the Legislative stalemate that is gripping Augusta.  The deal would be to place the important ballot access fairness Resolution on the 2019 fall ballot.  Finally, a chance for the “other Maine” to have a say in what appears on the ballot as an initiative.  Help us stop special interests and their money from monopolizing southern populated areas to push their agendas and divide our state into the haves and have nots!

The House Republicans have supported us time and time again in our fight to bring fairness to the initiative process!  Ask them to do it one more time by joining Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans as well as House Democrats in making LD 31 a priority in any deal to end the stalemate.

Your support is needed ASAP as time is running out!  Ask your Representative to support LD 31 as key part of a final leadership compromise that brings northern and southern Maine together.

This bill would finally bring fairness to rural and suburban Maine by giving them a voice in what appears on the ballot. If this is approved, Maine would become the 13th state of 24 states with a referendum system to adopt such a voter fairness law.

Click here to contact House members and ask them to support LD 31 as part of the leadership compromise.

Below is a little history about LD 31:

Our organization has introduced this important Constitutional change as a way to bring fairness to rural and suburban areas of Maine that are generally ignored when organizations are collecting signatures for Citizen Initiated petitions.  In nearly every campaign, mostly paid signature collectors, funded from out of state, are targeting heavily populated areas in the First Congressional District.  Simply put, it is all about the money, the more people, the more profit. 

Petition signatures are valuable, hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent with companies and special interests to buy their way onto the ballot and their job is easier when their campaigns can concentrate their efforts in and around cities like Portland.  This may seem okay when you live in Portland and the surrounding area, but, it is blatantly unfair for the remainder of the state.  Why? You ask. Because some initiatives originating in heavily populated areas can disproportionately and negatively affect rural areas that feel powerless in the qualifying process. 

For instance, over 80 percent of the signatures to put the bear referendum question on the ballot came from the First Congressional District, yet virtually no one in that area would have been affected by its passage.  Half the states, around the nation that have referendum systems, (24) have adopted geographical distribution policies, (12) like the one proposed in LD 31 to help bring ballot access fairness to the people living in rural and suburban areas.

The Federal Ninth Circuit Court ruled that this policy is fair and reasonable, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/03/14/10-16707.pdf

NCSL Report-Geographical Requirements

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/signature-requirements.aspx#Geo

I encourage you to read the Appeals Court ruling at the above link, it is very enlightening and should help answer any questions or doubts you may have about supporting this policy change.

There are some organizations that are opposed to this change, I understand they use the referendum system to promote their organization’s agenda and it is easier to leave the status quo.  I find their opposition stunningly hypocritical.  Your vote on this bill is not to adopt this proposed change, but to allow Maine people an opportunity to vote on the issue.

The opposition argument is: we want Maine people to have the ability to vote on the referendum questions of our choosing, but, we don’t want them to have an opportunity to vote on a policy that makes that system fair for all Mainers.  Do they trust Maine people to do the right thing or not?

I encourage you to read this important Appeals Court ruling, LD 31 is fair and reasonable and I hope you will support allowing Maine people to hear the debate and make up their own mind.

Click here to contact House members and ask them to support LD 31 as part of the leadership compromise.

Please share this with your friends and family!

Share

Secretary Zinke Proposes Expansion of Hunting and Fishing Opportunities at 30 of America’s National Wildlife Refuges

Press Release from the Department of Interior:

WASHINGTON – Continuing his efforts to increase access to public lands, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke today announced a proposal to open more than 248,000 acres to new or expanded hunting and fishing opportunities at 30 national wildlife refuges.

Opportunities include places like Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois and Wisconsin, and deer hunting in Philadelphia at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge being proposed for the first time. The proposal also outlines expanded hunting and fishing opportunities at 136 national wildlife refuges. If finalized, this would bring the number of units of the National Wildlife Refuge System where the public may hunt to 377, and the number where fishing would be permitted to 312.

“As stewards of our public lands, Interior is committed to opening access wherever possible for hunting and fishing so that more families have the opportunity to pass down this American heritage,” Zinke said. “These 30 refuges will provide incredible opportunities for American sportsmen and women across the country to access the land and connect with wildlife.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) proposal would open more new acres to hunting and fishing than in the past and takes steps to simplify regulations to more closely match state hunting and fishing regulations. The changes would be implemented in time for the upcoming 2018-2019 hunting seasons.

Hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities contributed more than $156 billion in economic activity in communities across the United States in 2016 according to the Service’s National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, published every five years. More than 101 million Americans – 40 percent of the U.S. population 16 and older – pursue wildlife-related recreation – such as hunting, fishing and birding.

“Ensuring public lands are open for multiple uses supports local economies and provides important opportunities for recreation. Further, this proposal means that families and individuals across our nation will be better able to participate in our nation’s tradition of hunting and fishing. We appreciate Secretary Zinke and the Interior Department for advancing this priority, and we will continue to work to improve access to public lands for our sportsmen,” said Senator John Hoeven.

“Public lands should be open for the public to enjoy,” said Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah. “The Department of the Interior’s latest decision to expand acreage and access for hunting and fishing on wildlife refuges was the right move. Secretary Zinke’s decision will help our economy grow and enable those who hunt and fish to spend more time catching game and less time caught in red tape.”

“North Dakota is a sportsman’s paradise. The decision to expand access to public lands by opening more than 248,000 acres across the nation to hunting and fishing will provide new economic opportunities for local communities as well as open up new areas for anglers and hunters,” said Congressman Kevin Cramer. “For the first time, the J. Clark Salyer and Lostwood National Wildlife Refuges will be open to moose hunting. I commend the Secretary’s decision and look forward to working with the department.”

“Hunters, anglers and shooting sports enthusiasts play a crucial role in funding the management and conservation of North America’s wildlife,” said Service Principal Deputy Director Greg Sheehan. “We are providing sportsmen and women with more access to our national wildlife refuges and streamlining regulations to more closely align with our state partners. And that’s good news for our customers.”

The Service manages hunting and fishing programs to ensure sustainable wildlife populations while also offering other traditional wildlife-dependent recreation on public lands, such as wildlife watching and photography. The Refuge System is an unparalleled network of 566 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts. There is a national wildlife refuge within an hour’s drive of most major metropolitan areas.

“The proposed expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities through working partnership with the states is a demonstration of Secretary Zinke’s commitment to our nation’s outdoor heritage and the conservation community,” said Virgil Moore, President of the Association of the Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. “These efforts reaffirm the tremendous value of quality wildlife habitat and outdoor recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing, in connecting millions of Americans to the outdoors.”

“We applaud Secretary Zinke and the Fish and Wildlife Service for their continued commitment to increasing opportunities for hunting and fishing within the National Wildlife Refuge System,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane. “We look forward to continuing to work with the Department of Interior on increasing access for sportsmen and women.”

Hunting and/or fishing will expand or be opened on the following refuges:

Arkansas

California

Florida

Illinois

Illinois and Missouri

Illinois and Wisconsin

Indiana

Maine

Maine and New Hampshire

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Montana

New Jersey

New Jersey and New York

New Mexico

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Utah

Wisconsin

  • Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge: Open hunting of certain gamebirds, small mammals and furbearers for the first time, and expand existing migratory game bird and big game hunting.

The Service will seek comments from the public on the proposed rule for 30 days, beginning with publication in the Federal Register in coming days. The notice will be available at www.regulations.gov, docket no. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2018-0020, and will include details on how to submit your comments. An interim copy of the proposed rule is now available at https://www.fws.gov/home/pdfs/Proposed_2018-2019_Hunt_Fish_Rule_signed.pdf.

More than 53 million Americans visit refuges every year. National wildlife refuges provide vital habitat for thousands of species and access to world-class recreation, from fishing, hunting and boating to nature watching, photography and environmental education. In doing so, they support regional economies to the tune of $2.4 billion dollars per year and support more than 35,000 jobs.

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Service permits hunting and fishing along with four other types of wildlife-dependent recreation, including wildlife photography, environmental education, wildlife observation and interpretation, when they are compatible with an individual refuge’s purpose and mission. Hunting, within specified limits, is currently permitted on 337 wildlife refuges and 37 wetland management districts. Fishing is currently permitted on 277 wildlife refuges and 34 wetland management districts.

Share

What’s This? Wolves to be Removed From Protection Nationwide?

*Editor’s Note and Update* (5/21/18) The below link to the Appropriation Committee’s Draft Bill does not work at this time. I was able to track down a copy of that Draft at this link. Once reaching the PDF of the Draft Bill, scroll down to “Gray Wolves Range-Wide” 

Appropriations Committee Releases the Draft Fiscal Year 2019 Interior and Environment Bill

GRAY WOLVES RANGE-WIDE – SEC. 117

(a) Not later than the end of fiscal year 2019, and except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior shall issue a rule to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in each of the 48 contiguous States of the United States and the District of Columbia from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in section 17.11 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule.

(b) Such issuance (including this shall not be subject to judicial review; and shall not affect the inclusion of the subspecies classified as the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) of the species gray wolf (Canis lupus) in such list.

 

Draft bill:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP06/20180515/108314/BILLS-115HR-SC-AP-FY2019-Interior-SubcommitteeDraft.pdf

 

Press release:

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395297

Share

Political Partisanship is Caused by Term Limits?

I got quite a kick out of reading former Attorney General Jon Lund’s and former Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, George Smith’s perspective on term limits and the call to get rid of them. A clear example of seeing the glass either half empty or half full or long-term “experienced” politicians vs. greenhorns who don’t know how to play the game devised over many years by “experienced” members of the Maine Legislature and leadership.

Perhaps the real problem with “term limits” is they are not term limits at all. If it takes more than 8, 10, or 16 years learn who’s palm gets greased and who does the greasing and what it is that is getting greased, isn’t that the real reason for term limits? The other argument is that no legislative position, once designed to be filled by part-time volunteer community service, should be recognized and treated as a career. Has one’s imagination and reality become so clouded that we cannot see the problems with career politicians at every level? Evidently. Try blowing the smoke away or remove yourself from the accepted status quo long enough to see what the rest of us see.

Lund describes term limits as causing the loss of “the opportunity to develop and retain experienced and skillful leadership and a cadre of experienced legislators.”  There’s more than one way to look at this. Why is there a need to “develop” politicians? It is made to sound like when a person enters the fray in Augusta for the first time, they are told what they will do and how they will do it…or else. Oh, wait a minute. That is exactly how it is done according to some former Maine legislators that I have talked with. Once you have proven that you are agreeable to play politics according to the whims of those who got “developed” and “retained” by the previous good-ole-boys, then you can become one of them and with this, evidently, it is what Smith and Lund describe as “credibility.”

Lund further states: “…in order to gain credibility with their peers, a first-term legislator needs to say very little and carefully develop expertise.” Need I say more. What is wrong with a system in which when a perfectly intelligent person walks into the halls of the Legislature on that very first day and is expected by the sitting leadership to “say very little and carefully develop expertise?” There’s that word develop again. And what is expertise? Is that conforming to the way it’s always been or you’re outta here?!?!?

The author claims it takes time to “…learn the legislative process, develop leadership skills, and gain the confidence of fellow legislators.” For what purpose? How many brains does it take to learn a legislative process unless that process includes learning how things get done in Augusta? Isn’t the argument, or at least part of it, that carrying out the legislative business the way it’s always been carried out, complete with doing what you are told for long enough to “earn credibility” the problem?

And lastly, Lund blames the partisanship in Augusta on term limits: “…we did not experience the paralyzing partisanship that appears to mark the State House today. I attribute the difference, in part, to the presence of a larger proportion of experienced members in the Legislature.” (Note: I’m guessing this is a typo. Either the author meant to use the word “inexperienced” or he just seriously contradicted his entire argument of attempting to blame partisanship on term limits.)

According to Mr. Lund then there are two options available – get rid of term limits and fill the seats in Augusta with all the most experienced “politicians” completely bought and paid for so that they can get done only those things they want to be done, or, implement real term limits of one term of four years in either house…period – end of discussion. The way Smith and Lund describe it there’s only a handful of robotic puppets capable of carrying out the business of running the State of Maine. The rest of us are just too stupid. Some have argued that nobody wants the job. That may be true but have you ever considered that there would be little desire for a job that once you get there you are told to sit down and shut up because you haven’t learned how WE do things around here?

Smith mostly parrots what Lund says and says being in Augusta isn’t “fun” anymore because of term limits. He too says that lack of “experience” doesn’t make it fun anymore – no more going out to lunch and socializing like the good-ole-days.

Confusing to me, Smith cites an example of a friend of his who “in just his second term” and made the head of the Fish and Wildlife Committee, was a lone dissenter on a bill being discussed. This friend “fought his committee for several hours in a House debate, angering many of them.” And because this guy had a mind of his own and argued his case, he is unqualified to be a legislator? Would he then have had “credibility” if he just sat down and shut up and went along to get along?

The longer politicians spend in office the potential becomes exponential in the amount of corruption that can and does take place. There are many Maine citizens very capable of carrying out the business of the Maine Legislature without having first to pay tribute to the rank and file “credible” and “experienced” politicians. Isn’t this the very reason there is no respect among the citizens for politicians and they find the idea of serving in a legislative position akin to walking on hot coals?

Share

Zinke Signs Secretarial Orders to Increase Recreational Opportunities on Public Lands and Waters

Press Release from the Department of Interior:

*Editor’s Note* – Please note the actual intent of the Secretary’s orders. Nothing he is establishing creates any new or expanded recreational opportunities on Public Lands. He is merely designating certain Interior personnel to come up with some suggestions.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke today signed two secretarial orders continuing his efforts to prioritize the Department of Interior’s recreation mission and increase access to public lands.

Secretarial Order 3366 directs certain Interior bureaus to create and deliver plans to the Department within 90 days that focus on developing or expanding recreational opportunities on public lands and waterways. This order also directs bureau heads to designate one full-time employee charged to oversee recreational opportunities.

“From my first day on the job, I have made it abundantly clear that we are going to refocus on Interior’s long-standing but recently forgotten recreation mission,” said Secretary Zinke. “We are incredibly fortunate, as Americans, to have amazing public lands and waters to carry out our tradition of outdoor recreation but the Department must continue to create opportunities to increase access for these pursuits.”

“We are delighted by the Secretary’s actions to put in place what he has pledged: a system that will elevate the priority of outdoor recreation on public lands and waters managed by the Department of Interior,” said Thom Dammrich, the President of the National Marine Manufacturers Association. “The Secretary’s action recognizes the importance of outdoor recreation for our economy, particularly rural economies, and for the physical and mental health of all Americans. His actions today will help grow outdoor recreation and ensure that fun in the outdoors remains central to the American lifestyle. The Outdoor Recreation Roundtable pledges our support to the Secretary in his efforts to elevate the Department’s commitment to outdoor recreation.”

“Outdoor recreation is an economic engine that produces 2% of the U.S. GDP and is growing at a faster rate than the U.S. economy as a whole,” said Frank Hugelmeyer, the President of the RV Industry Association. “With the right public policies, outdoor recreation will continue to be an American economic engine for years to come. Which is why the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable and its member associations applaud today’s announcements by Secretary Zinke as a common sense plan to elevate the importance of outdoor recreation on public lands and waters throughout the Department of the Interior. This is an important step towards improving the visitor experience on public lands and waters across the country.”

“The recreation industry looks forward to cooperating with the department to offer visitors to parks, refuges and other special places great experiences,” said Derrick Crandall, President of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable. “The result of better and modernized visitor infrastructure which will contribute to a renaissance of rural communities and a renewed commitment by all Americans to the strong conservation ethic our nation has shared with the world. We thank Secretary Zinke for putting a new emphasis on welcoming enjoyment of our public lands and waters and embracing new skills and new ideas to make visits compatible with protecting our natural and historic resources.”

The bureaus are also asked to provide recommendations for improving and streamlining relevant permitting requirements for guides and outfitters and facilitated outdoor recreation providers and to improve contracting processes for recreation-specific concessioners.

“Whether your favorite activity is kayaking on a river, riding an ATV on sand dunes, jogging on a trail or hunting on a refuge—recreating on public lands and waters is good for the mind, body and soul,” said Secretary Zinke. “And it is also incredibly vital to local economies who rely on recreation spending to help create jobs.”

Secretarial Order 3365 establishes the position of Senior National Advisor to the Secretary for Recreation to ensure deliberate and active coordination of recreational policy in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The position will be filled by Rick May, who currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the Secretary.

May, who joined Interior in November 2017, is a retired U.S. Navy SEAL Captain and decorated veteran who served in the Iraq War. Since his departure from active duty in 2010, he has worked with wounded Veterans in various types of recreational activities, helping them to reintegrate back into mainstream America. May is a graduate of Sonoma State University with a Bachelor of Arts in Biology and he also holds a Master of Arts in Human Resource Management.

“Rick is the absolute best person for this job,” said Secretary Zinke. “The work he has done in helping disabled veterans connect with the outdoors through recreation opportunities speaks for itself. As a former SEAL, he has the leadership needed to help the Department chart its course in making recreation a priority again.”

“First, I’m truly honored and grateful for the confidence that Secretary Zinke has placed in me to hold this position,” said Rick May. “The power of recreation can not be overstated, and its ties to overall health and well-being are undeniable. It is my mission to get more Americans out to enjoy our great public lands, and I look forward to increasing access and opportunity for each and every one of them.”

The Secretarial Orders come on the heels of Secretary Zinke selecting members of the newly created “Made In America” Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee. A primary charge to the committee is to advise the Secretary on public-private partnerships across all public lands, with the goal of expanding access to and improving the infrastructure on public lands and waters.

Share

Maine’s Legislature Overrides LePage’s Anti-Hunting Veto

How much clearer do you send a message to the governor than to override his veto in both houses with unanimous votes? Such was the case in Maine as the Legislature by votes of 33-0 in the Senate and 148-0 in the House overrode Governor LePage’s veto of bill LD 1816.

If you recall I recently made comments on two bills that the governor signed his veto to – LD 1816 and LD 1823.

LD 1816 was more of a discriminatory bill than anti-hunting. This issue stems from making laws to stop illegal baiting of deer for hunting purposes. The initial passage of a bill aimed at addressing this concern came last year when the Legislature passed LD 1083. In that bill, the punishment for a second offense of hunting over bait required a lifetime loss of hunting privileges. Some, like Sen. Davis, believed that punishment to be beyond the scope of the severity of the crime and wished to amend that bill to make a second-offense punish a two-year license loss. LD 1816 passed both houses but the governor vetoed it. The vote to override was unanimous.

In my comments about LePage’s veto I wrote: “Until such time as Maine can get their act together to better lay out the exact definition of “bait” and at the same time rid the conflicts between growing “crops” and hunting over those and hunting over bait placed by a hunter – as though growing a crop to hunt over is any different than dumping a bag of apples under a tree stand – I cannot agree with LePage’s veto of this bill.”

Senator Paul Davis was quoted in the Piscataquis Observer that: “The fact of the matter is, deer baiting laws only really apply to hunters who don’t have the economic means to purchase land and manage for crops that attract deer. It is perfectly legal to hunt over a crop, yet it is illegal to hunt deer over a pile of apples. This discrepancy in Maine law treats some hunters differently than others, and I don’t believe that it is fair. That’s why I feel strongly that this crime shouldn’t carry a more severe penalty than other crimes that are much worse, such as hunting game out of season or illegal night hunting.”

Now perhaps it is time for some Maine politician(s) to do the right thing and step forward to change the recent law (LD 557) passed that wrongly punishes hunters more than all others for the same crime. Unconstitutional Animus, or a serious violation of equal protection under the law, does not permit a more severe punish against one group over another. Last June (2017) I wrote: “I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case, a hunter or fisherman is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.”

The Maine legislature has righted one wrong in bringing the punishment for hunting over bait back to something more sensible. They still need to clear up the contradictions and definitions between hunting over a crop and hunting over a bait pile.

Now if they can straighten out this ridiculous discriminatory law that targets hunters for greater punishment than all other groups, things would be better off.

Share

Maine Governor Vetoes Two Hunting Related Bills

Maine Governor Paul LePage has vetoed two hunting-related bills – LD 1816 and LD 1823.

LD 1816 is a bill that would reduce the second offense penalty for hunting deer over bait from a lifetime license ban back to a two-year suspension. Here is the statement Governor LePage made public for his reason for vetoing the new bill.

LD 1816

Governor LePage cited a reason for keeping the lifetime license suspension as punishment for a second offense as being a strong deterrent to stop illegal hunting of deer over bait. With unclear definitions as to what determines “bait”, it would appear that abuse by law enforcement and the courts could make for as much trouble as the handful of those charged with hunting over bait now.

Until such time as Maine can get their act together to better lay out the exact definition of “bait” and at the same time rid the conflicts between growing “crops” and hunting over those and hunting over bait placed by a hunter – as though growing a crop to hunt over is any different than dumping a bag of apples under a tree stand – I cannot agree with LePage’s veto of this bill.

It would appear that while it may be a strong deterrent, the punishment may not fit the crime when comparatives are made with all laws and punishments in Maine.

LD 1823 is a bill that made permanent a temporary law that allowed nonresidents to hunt on the “Residents Only” Saturday prior to the open season on deer, provided that nonresident owned at least 25 acres of land in the state. Here is the Governor’s reason for the veto.

LD 1823

I never liked the bill in the first place. While it seems a good thing to make hunting opportunity available whenever possible, this kind of legislation simply reeks of preferred treatment, discrimination, and elitism.

Hunting should never be meted out in any fashion when determined by social status. Simply because a person is wealthy enough, or through inheritance, to own land equalling at least 25 acres shouldn’t give them privilege over someone else who doesn’t.

While LePage believes the Residents Day Only is special for Maine residents and should remain that way, consideration of making it also open to nonresidents should be all or nothing.

Let the discriminatory bill sunset. The veto was good.

Share

Gun Control Laws Aimed At Public Safety: The Devil is in the Definitions

Yesterday I posted a notice about the intent of Maine lawmakers to introduce a bill disguised as a “Community Protection Order” that will “Prevent High-Risk Individuals” from possessing firearms.

Some may say the intent of the proposed legislation is a good idea and perhaps that is true to some extent. A serious argument can be made as to whether such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment as well as Due Process.

But forget about that for a moment.

Much of the problem with any of these laws is that interpretations of definitions are left up to a court and the arguments of lawyers. That, in and of itself, should alert us immediately to serious problems.

The crux of this proposed legislation is centered around “mental illness” and/or a person’s propensity toward violent and emotional behavior. Recognizing the seriousness of these conditions is a matter of a person’s perspective. Do we really want to limit Due Process based on the perspective of a judge?

LD 1884, is the Maine proposed bill which is the matter of topic. I’ll go ahead and post what this legislation uses for “definitions” to help understand the intent of the law and offer comments after.

§ 401.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

1.  Community protection order.   “Community protection order” means a written order signed by the court that prohibits and enjoins temporarily, if issued pursuant to subchapter 2, or on an extended basis, if issued pursuant to subchapter 3, a named individual from having a firearm in that individual’s custody or control or owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.
2.  Family or household member.   “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.
3.  High-risk individual.   “High-risk individual” means an individual who presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual and:

A.  Has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication but has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual’s medication while not under supervision; or
B.  Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual for the purposes of this chapter. As used in this subsection, “mental illness” has the same meaning as in section 3318-A, subsection 1, paragraph B.

4.  Restrained individual.   “Restrained individual” means an individual who is the subject of a community protection order.
Community Protection Order – Of note here is that this order can be issued in one of two ways – either as a temporary order by a court that has determined that an individual fits the bill’s criteria of being barred from having anything to do with a gun, or the same conditions on an extended basis once again according to the interpretation of the court of Subchapters 2 and 3.
The title of this order is designed to mislead the public into thinking this is the will of the “community” a communistic term and that it is for the purpose of keeping that “community” safe from those with a “mental illness.” After all, all those with a “mental illness” are mass murderers…right?
High-Risk Individual – This is where things get really dicey. A “High-Risk Individual” is here defined as someone who a judge thinks (his perspective of course because there are no real definitions for this condition) is going to hurt himself or another person. In addition to this perceived condition, this person has a “mental illness” – again an interpretation based on biased training or thinking/ideology. Once a court decides for themselves a person has a mental illness they must then decide whether they think this person has been taking their medications as prescribed by some quack doctor.
The suggestion here is that if a judge, having decided you have a “mental” condition, deems that you haven’t demonstrated “a pattern of voluntarily and consistently” taking your pills you lose your right to self-protection and due process.
Part B of this section is a real doozy! If it is shown “through evidence” (wink-wink) that actions by any person with a court’s definition of mental illness can show a “reasonable belief” that such a person has a disposition toward “violent or emotionally unstable conduct,” then they will be issued a Community Protection Order – perhaps ostracized for life.
The real joke is when the authors of the bill attempt to mislead the voters by saying just because a person has a mental illness, and has been “released from” a nut house, so long as they are being good brain-dead zombies and taking their chemicals, doesn’t necessarily mean they are a threat to the valued “community.” RIGHT!
History has shown us that it is most often a needless task to keep “mentally ill” people institutionalized and pumped up or down with chemicals and is a drain to that valued community, so they are gathered up and murdered. After all, these valued communities cannot be bogged down and given bad images from anyone with a “mental illness.” They MIGHT pose a threat, real or imagined, to their way of life. Society decides who lives and who dies.
Restrained Individual – Once you have met all the criteria that the “Community” has determined using their own standards of measurements, including societal tolerances, political ideology, and in general operation under the fear instilled in them by actions of a fascist governmental regime, the lucky winner becomes labeled as a “Restrained Individual.” How fortunate.
Whether you agree with the intent of the proposed bill or not shouldn’t matter once you consider how such fascist laws, put into play by willing and eager totalitarians, are a serious threat to any society that still deems itself to be free.
Giving power to the Courts and to governments to make decisions based on highly abstract and illusory definitions is quite akin to National Socialism. If you don’t fully comprehend National Socialism then you haven’t been paying very close attention.
There are channels that already exist in which efforts to control a deranged person from committing mass murder. If the information given to the public about the shooting in Parkland, Florida is at all truthful, then the lesson to walk away with is that those with authority to have intervened failed in their jobs. Insanity tells us to make more fascist laws that will not and cannot be enforced will somehow make a difference.
But this problem is not endemic to Maine. Since the Parkland, Florida shooting many state governments and the Federal government have proposed laws that are similar that leave the interpretation of what determines a mental illness, propensity to violence, or emotional unstableness up to the courts and the governments. Even fake Second Amendment advocates have stood firmly behind such insane legislation.
With each passing day, it amazes me more and more the eagerness of totalitarian useful idiots to help tie the noose that will one day be their demise. In the days of Marx and Stalin, when these two were finished using those that helped bring them to power, they just murdered them to get them out of their way.
So what’s happening to you today?
Share

Conspiracy Theory As Insult AND Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution as a Bonus

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..”~Thomas Jefferson, 1776

Thus begins the proposal that goes forward to become the most eloquent statement of conspiracy theory ever penned by mankind.

Conspiracy has played a large part in forming the march of history. In fact this nation was the result of the conspiracy theories of the the founders who allegedly wrote the Declaration of Independence__another conspiracy that resulted in the U.S. corpration, truth be known they were conspiring with the King all along. The majority of that document is a list of charges against the British King George, that is long list of conspiracy charges against the King’s tyranny against his own American British subjects settling this continent.. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence.. Maybe you should read it again and again until you get it…Then moving on there is the conspiracy to murder Julius Caesar, to the conspiracy to kill Lincoln, to the Dreyfus Affair, MKUltra, the Gulf of Tonkin affair, the assassination of JFK, to the Watergate burglary, and the Iran Contra affair of the present era, the conspiracy to kill RFK, MLK, the failed attempt on Reagan..

There has been 5-7 U.S. presidents assassinated in U.S. history.. Hilariously all official conspiracy claims are BELIEVED, while whoever is skeptical of the Ministry of Truths conspiratorial explanations of criminal events is called a conspiracy theorist nut case… Obviously by state programmed true believers.. The Bible is a conspiracy theory, a real one… Not all people in this world are honest, hard working and forthcoming about their intentions. Certainly we can all agree on this. So how did the term “conspiracy theory” get grouped in with fiction, fantasy and folklore? The term “conspiracy theory” is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from “the people” and as excuses for war for the acquisition of another countries resources.. Oops..

How about the CIA installing puppet presidents in foreign countries? oops.. What is the definition of “covert operations”? These certainly entail government decisions, which are normally conducted in secret by powerful people. Oops.. Are the “anti-conspiracists” seriously going to deny that the Intelligence agencies of the US do not in fact carry out covert operations? Is it not a proven historical fact that such operations are standard procedures for all governments? Even the nomenclature of such operations are well known; “modified limited hangout”, “revetments” “plausible deniability”, “executive action”, “wet work”, “enhanced interrogation” oops… Everyone knows the government lies to them, the left says the right lies the right says the left lies… oops… The other political party is conspiring against the other political party…oops.. A national security agency, a national security state is the very definition of a conspiracy…

Criminal theory, crime theory, critical thinking theory, coincidence theory, skepticism theory.. For something to be a conspiracy theory means that something whatever it was or is, is factual and if a man or woman examines the theory of whatever that something was or is they are then called a conspiracy theorist, I like conspiracy analyst myself.. But then aren’t police and prosecutors conspiracy theorists or are they just criminal theorists… The government is a conspiracy theorist, the government theory of the JFK assassination, the RFK assassination, the MLK assassination..Enter into any court room in the world and what do we discover taking place in there, the prosecution is conspiring against the defense and vice versa. And everyone sitting in there is conspiring in support of one side or the other, they’re all breathing together, even the judge is in on it.. It is what it is..

There is the governments published conspiracy theory known as the Warren Commission report. The government theory on 9/11… Conspiracy has played a large part in forming the march of history.  So the anti conspiracy mentality is social engineering, I like to call those the conspiracy of psychology theories against conspiracy theories, or conspiracists theorizing about flaws in official conspiracy theories… The CIA of course created a legal document back in the 1960s as a ruse to defend the official conspiracy theory narrative of the JFK assassination to demonize critics of the Warren Commission Report.. So that is definitely a conspiracy right there itself, the conspiracy against conspiracy theorists..The Conspiracy to Defame Conspiracy Theory.. So the conspiracy anyone is theorizing about is a factual conspiracy, what is theorized about is evidence, who benefited, who else was involved.. Everyone out there is not gullible, not all of those of us are afraid to open up our mouths and say hey wait a minute that official story sounds a lot like well, uh, BULLSHIT..

CIA Document 1035-960
Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)
http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

Conspiracist: one who believes or promotes a conspiracy theory.
First Known Use of CONSPIRACIST: 1976
Synonyms 1. collusion, sedition. 2. Conspiracy, plot, intrigue, cabal all refer to surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish some end, most often an evil one.
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
United States
Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.[17][18] A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. One legal dictionary, law.com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.
[A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy.
Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a “general intent” to violate the law.
Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime. However, in United States v. Shabani the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this “overt act” element is not required under the federal drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. section 846.
The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy.[19]
International law
Conspiracy law was used at the Nuremberg Trials for members of the Nazi leadership charged with participating in a “conspiracy or common plan” to commit international crimes. This was controversial because conspiracy was not a part of the European civil law tradition. Nonetheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in international criminal justice, and was incorporated into the international criminal laws against genocide.- Wiki
________________________________
‘Conspiracy Theory’ As Insult
The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination!

Are groups of federalists keeping secrets committing conspiracy? They just might be.. I’d say its a safe bet they’re conspiring to confiscate small arms.. I’d venture to say the law already exists and is awaiting announcement, and even dare say they all know it…

Article 1 Section 5 – they can keep whoever they want secret for as long as they want…
U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 5
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 5 – Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
<>
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

The 1947 National Security Act… in legal parlance this document allows federal agencies to keep whatever they want secret from you if they do not want you to know anything about whatever that is thus they don’t have to tell you… Congress approved necessary and proper… Oops, thats not conspiring against you stakeholder right to know is it…. they have agreed that their Congress has to keep secrets from time to time oopsy daisy…I’d say most of the time if not ll of the time.. They even kept it secret who “We The People” really is…

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195385168/resources/chapter10/nsa/nsa.pdf

Ok, enjoy your coincidence theories, psychological theories, mythical histories and the bubble gum scientism…

Have a great day…

Share

The Continued Misrepresentation of Wildlife Watching

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper is, at best, misleading as well as selfishly hypocritical probably due mostly to ignorance.

In the Letter, the author says, “…about two-thirds more people come to this state every year to watch a live moose than to kill a moose…” I have my doubts that this person has any real data to support this claim but even if they did, the data would be inaccurate unless “you know a thing or two because you’ve seen a thing or two.”

I happen to know a thing a two about these statistics that claim that there are more wildlife watchers than hunters. Here’s how it works.

Yellowstone National Park is a prime and representative example of how “statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” When visitors to the park are surveyed they are asked if they saw any wolves during their trip. Whether they did or didn’t matters not. The statistic they were seeking was to put this visitor down as someone who traveled to Yellowstone for the purpose of viewing a wolf. This way the data gatherers can drum up a number to support their wolf agendas.

Throughout the country similar surveys take place. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts similar surveys. When asking participants in a survey what they did and where they went, they were also asked if they saw wildlife. If they did, they automatically become designated wildlife watchers even if their intent was something else. What they don’t differentiate is the honest and complete demographics of the person being surveyed.

Another example would be when a person who happens to be a hunter is in the woods hunting for any game animal when asked if they saw other wildlife, they then become a statistic labeled as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a hunter. Most people believe because it is what they have been wrongfully misled to believe, that there are hunters and there are wildlife watchers. I don’t know of any hunters who aren’t wildlife watchers. So, what percentage of the “two-thirds” are actually hunters, fishermen, and/or trappers?

I might tend to agree that there are more people who come to Maine in hopes of seeing a moose somewhere than come to moose hunt. That’s a no-brainer. Only 210 moose permits were issued to “those from away” for the 2016 moose hunt.

The author mentions that hunting licenses in Maine have been on the decline. That may be so but it should be as important to ask why that might be so. Is it because those potential hunters have become wildlife watchers instead? Is it because the hunting over the past decade or so in Maine has become so poor fewer want to spend the money or take the time off work to hunt when success rates are dropping faster than the number of licensed hunters? Or maybe it’s like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the number one reason for any reduction in hunting has to do with being able to get time off from work. So what does that suggest about the hunter? I’ll let you figure that out while you’re standing in the welfare hand-out line waiting to collect so you can go watch wildlife.

What’s also deliberately never spoken of is that if not for the efforts and money spent by hunters, there would be no moose watching or wildlife watching in general. And that is a fact that ALL hunters are extremely proud of. And we do that WITHOUT demanding that someone else change their lifestyle.

The author states a couple more grave errors deliberately attempting to influence public opinion. First, it is stated that if a constitutional amendment passed in Maine placing a “right to hunt” as part of the constitution, it “…would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the Maine Constitution.” Whether intended by the author or not to mislead readers to believe that an amendment, as proposed, would give Maine citizens the protected right to hunt, fish and trap regardless of the goals and direction of the state’s wildlife management programs, use of the word “enshrine” certainly paints that picture. The proposal basically recognizes that hunting, fishing, and trapping are a scientifically proven method of managing wildlife populations to ensure their sustainability. It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Secondly, if such an amendment passed it would not eliminate the right of citizens to petition the state in regards to wildlife management.

However, at the root of all this, we clearly see the real problem. The author makes the bold and extremely inaccurate statement that “…the hunting and trapping special interests in this state view wildlife as their own private preserve rather than a public resource.” That is the biggest bag of horse manure that I am sick and tired of selfish, ignorant, Leftist, immoral degenerates stating.

Clearly, it is before the reader to understand that there is nowhere in the majority of the hunting, fishing, and trapping collective that believes they own wildlife or game. It is the opposite. For decades the left has spent millions of dollars doing everything they can to force their perverse, degenerate lifestyle onto the rest of us. And just like the spoiled rotten brats they are, when hunters, fishermen, and trappers take a necessary step to protect one small activity to stop the onslaught, we are painted as selfish people who think the resource is ours alone. That’s never been the case in a million years.

Hunters understand that part of what they do is to perpetuate wildlife and make it so that everyone can enjoy it. We know that doesn’t come without a price. We understand that at times reductions in hunting permits need to be made in order to responsibly manage game populations. We like it when game populations exceed goals and we can hunt them and eat them. We understand that when we purchase a hunting, fishing, and/or a trapping license, that money is going toward responsible wildlife management for everyone to enjoy. How can any of this be seen as believing we own the resource?

As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite. Not only does this writer want to claim ownership of the resource, but wants to prohibit those of us who have worked for generations from being able to enjoy it in our own way. Instead, by the will of the writer, we are supposed to stop doing what we do because the writer doesn’t believe in it or doesn’t care to be a part of it.

So you tell me who is the selfish one here who thinks THEY own the resource. Maybe if this mixed-up and misled person and their ilk would stop trying to make us just like them, people in Maine wouldnt be trying to figure out how to stop them.

Utter leftist, selfish, psycho-babble!!!

Share