SAM, The NRA, and Silencers | The View from Here

*Editor’s Note* – I will speak neither for or against the passage of a bill in Maine that now allows the use of silencers when hunting. Instead, I would like to point out the nonsense, hypocrisy and double standards as they apply to politics, by politicians and anyone connected to and involved in politics.

The comment below, part of a bigger article, is saying that the only reason LD 942 passed was because of the powerful influences of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, the NRA and other “Big Guns.” While not directly coming out and saying it, the intimation is here that had not those responsible for proposing the bill, discussing the bill and voting on it, not been members of, or associated with, directly or indirectly, those groups mentioned, the bill might not have passed, and that may be so.

Depending on which side of any issue a person stands, we regularly see such nonsensical comments made. Suppose for a moment that anyone who was a member of, or associated with, any groups related to the issue, were exempted from voting or proposing such bills. What then? Would the anti-gun, run-for-your-life-we’re-all-gonna-die crowd be happy then? But, what happens when their pet environmental bill can only be voted on by anyone not connected to powerful environmental groups?

Suppose that this same qualification, or rather disqualification, applied to all proposed bills, discussions and voting. After all, whether the author of the article, link to below, is aware or not, this is his suggestion. Who, then, would that leave in Maine’s Legislature to carry on business?

As much as it stinks to be on the “losing” end of an emotional, legislative event, suggesting that those voting members be prohibited from being participants is a bit over the top.

Sure, I would like to make sure that any bill proposals about, say, the environment, exempted any members or associations with, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, etc. etc.

I understand that members of the Legislature often request to sit on specific committees, i.e. Joint Standing Committee for Fish and Wildlife, and that often legislative leaders, not only work to “stack the deck” on committees, as well as place people there who have background, but some of this is the nature of the beast. Perhaps a constitutional amendment would be in order?

I’m not sure in today’s corrupt political spectrum I can offer a solution to these perceived problems. The weight of a committee, democrat and republican, favors the political party in control, which, in my opinion, is one of the problems we face with party politics.

If, as suggested, voting on issues that might be perceived by some as a conflict of interest, is wrong and should be stopped, then who will be left to vote?

A little cheese with that WHINE? 

You’d think that after such powerful testimony by a wildlife professional as well as an officer in the Maine Warden Service, that LD 942 would have died in committee. Instead, it was passed unanimously. Why? Because every one of the four senators and five representatives who sponsored or co-sponsored the bill is either a member of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, highly rated by that organization, or both – not to mention that of the thirteen voting members of the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee which heard the bill, at least nine are members of SAM, and one of the co-sponsors is the chair of the committee as well as one of SAM’s Directors.

Source: SAM, The NRA, and Silencers | The View from Here