October 17, 2021

SAM Exposes More of Who’s Supporting Question 3

According to an article, Online, at the Boothbay Register, Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine executive director, David Trahan, further exposes the dishonesty and cover-up of those funding and supporting Question 3, worded as implementing “universal” background checks.

“Trahan criticized Yes on 3’s media campaign as being “distortions and paid for by out-of-state money.” One endorsement features Bobby Reynolds, a Maine resident, identifying himself as a gun owner and Second Amendment supporter.” What Reynolds doesn’t say, according to Trahan, is he works for Maine Street Solutions, a Washington, D.C. firm being paid by “Yes on 3.”

Another endorsement features two police chiefs: Michael Sauschuck of Portland and Ed Googins of South Portland. The two are members of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, which supports the referendum. Trahan said the two aren’t telling the entire story. Both are also Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence board members. Trahan described the organization as “the state’s most anti-gun coalition” favoring every gun control measure proposed in Maine.”

There’s also some good, but mostly bad, found at the end of the article when Trahan said, “if the referendum is approved it wouldn’t stand in the current form. Trahan promised to work with the legislature in January making the law “more workable and livable” for lawful gun owners.”

While there may exist a certain degree of comfort and gratitude that efforts would be carried out to tone down a fascist law, the ultimate crime is the further destruction of the Second Amendment – a Bill of Rights amendment that the majority of Americans disrespect at some level, from “reasonable” limitations to an all out repeal of the government-granted right.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 3, it’s yet simply another sad day in America as blinded fools dig their own graves of slavery and servitude and, yet, have no clue to it. Sad.

Share

The Staged Bangor Gun Heist

What a laugh. A person would have to be blind and stupid to not see that the recent break-in of a Center St. pawn shop in Bangor, Maine, where 16 handguns were “stolen” is a put up job by anti-gun extremists who will go to whatever lengths necessary to pass Question 3 on the November ballot. The angle the fascists of Michael Bloomberg have taken is to perpetuate the lie that guns sold without background checks are traveling outside the state of Maine and being used in crimes. There is no data to support such a claim.

And of course, the fascists have the full support of the media as is shown in the Bangor Daily News: “The theft of 16 handguns from a Center Street pawn shop early Wednesday might be part of an effort to smuggle weapons to out-of-state criminal organizations and connected to a similar burglary last month, officials said.”

It is also not coincidental that the organisation of Maine police chiefs is supporting Question 3, while the majority of law enforcement, including 12 of 16 county sheriffs and the Maine Warden Service do not support Question 3. The Bangor police are investigating and saying that: “Police detectives said “they think the guns are ending up out of state, going to the cities — New York, Boston, places like that.”

You should never underestimate the power, control and determination of connected insiders like Michael Bloomberg. A staged robbery of this kind is a tool used to perpetuate fear among the masses in hopes of prompting “Yes” votes on Question 3.

BTW – The first report of this robbery found Online at the WABI website, stated the robbery took place at 3:30 a.m. and that a previous robbery at the same location, took place on September 30. That may have meaning to those with knowledge.

This action is not unlike the event that transpired after Maine received its “Incidental Take Permit” for Canada lynx and within a matter of days 3 lynx were reported trapped and killed in traps. Previous to this, 3 lynx had never been killed from trapping. And we are supposed to believe the three lynx killed immediately after the ITP was obtained was mere coincidence?

Share

Wardens raise concerns about gun-sales background check proposal

“The Maine Warden Service says ballot Question 3 could be difficult or impossible to enforce, as supporters and opponents launch ads and announce endorsements.”<<<Read More>>>

“The Maine Warden Service, the law enforcement bureau of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is concerned that Question 3, if approved by the voters, will have negative impacts on some individuals who hunt and trap in Maine. Most importantly, this ballot question is written in such a way that it will be difficult—if not impossible—for Wardens to enforce.”<<<Read More>>>

mwsquestion3

Share

Maine Sheriffs Voting No on Question 3

Share

Gov. LePage: Question 3 is, “government will know if you own a gun”

“So don’t be fooled. Bloomberg’s proposal is not enforceable. It’s not going to prevent criminals from having guns. And it’s not really about lawful transfers of firearms. It’s all about creating a gun registration so Michael Bloomberg and the government will know if you own a gun. When Bloomberg solves the problem of gun violence in Chicago and his hometown of New York City, then he can come lecture us about firearms. Until then, he should stay out of Maine and keep his hands off our guns.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

12 of 16 Maine County Sheriffs Oppose Bloomberg’s Fascism

“While we respect the position and opinions of others, a byproduct of the democracy we enjoy, after careful deliberations and discussions with proponents and opponents alike, I will be joining 11 other Sheriff’s from around the State of Maine in voting No on #3.”

Other Sheriffs opposing the measure are: Androscoggin County Sheriff Eric Samson, Aroostook County Sheriff Darrell O. Crandall, Hancock County Sheriff Scott Kane, Knox County Sheriff Donna Dennison, Franklin County Sheriff Scott Nichols, Oxford County Sheriff Wayne Gallant, Penobscot County Sheriff Troy Morton, Piscataquis county Sheriff John Goggin, Somerset County Sheriff Dale Lancaster, Waldo County Sheriff Jeffrey Trafton, Washington county Sheriff Barry Curtis and York County Sheriff William King. <<<Read More>>>

Share

Trust Your Elected Government Representative?

AHEM!

An op-ed found on the Maine Wire, says that making laws through the referendum process is not a good way to do it, and lists some of the reasons why this might be so. Unfortunately, the author doesn’t offer a precise solution but does intimate that placing trust in the representatives that got elected as being the best solution. “When we elect lawmakers, we expect them to weigh various proposals. Recognizing that a first draft isn’t always the best, we empower the Legislature to amend bills, sanding off rough edges and trying to fashion the best solution to the problem at hand. They don’t — or at least, shouldn’t — capitulate to an advocacy group simply because that group has a lot of money or yells the loudest.”

From my perspective, the entire process of electing representatives and making laws is flawed and corrupt. The author’s perspective also appears a bit idealistic and probably is rooted in his own connections to the political system. However, to think that wealthy political influencers can control the law making process through the referendum process and such corruption is immune via the legislative process is naive. It’s the only thing that drives all laws in this country.

A troubling part of this process is when political activists begin demanding changes to how the system works when things aren’t going their way or they are feeling threatened. Often overlooked in the emotional action and reaction is that changes to processes work in all directions and often comes round and bites you on the backside.

To suggest doing away with the referendum process, relying solely on elected officials, is both foolish and dangerous. Doing so would further eliminate the right of people to petition the government. Is that what we really want? When’s the last time you saw an elected politician refuse to “go along to get along” in order to carry out the majority wishes of his or her constituency?

It seems in Maine over the past few years, a lot of noise has arisen about the signature gathering process to get referendums onto a ballot. And now we hear suggestions that the process is a terrible way of making laws. Isn’t the real problem a matter of finding a way to keep the referendum process for Maine, or any other state, within the political processes of that state, as well as discovering, somehow, ways to control the flow of money?

Government is dangerous enough without handing them another free pass to disregard the wishes of the voters. Unfortunately, we live in a Socio-Democratic society where all it takes is 51% of the people to force the rest to live by their rules. This may be a terrible political system to live under but I assure you that having no recourse than to simply allow government officials to dictate terms more than they already do, is an even worse suggestion as a possible solution.

Share

Trahan: ‘Yes on 3’ wrong on gun facts

“There are no “loopholes” that allow non-residents to traffic guns in and out of Maine. Some guns might legally have traveled across the state lines when gun owners moved out of Maine. Others were illegally acquired and transported in violation of the existing law. Question 3 won’t make a bit of difference for either case. It doesn’t apply to the first scenario, and in the second, criminals who don’t obey existing laws, won’t obey new laws.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Question 3 Intentionally Confusing to Isolate Gun Owners

*Editor’s Note* – As the debate on Maine’s referendum Question 3 continues, the author, linked to below, offers an interesting approach and resolve, and perhaps one that is not fully understood.

The author seeks power in the unity of gun owners. As a society it is what we know, but do we fully understand it? For someone like myself, I find my strength in self-determination and the limitation of my succession of liberties, given me by my Creator, in efforts to preserve some sort of sovereignty. Once any man joins forces with any group, community, country, state, shooting club, NRA, a political party, etc. they have willingly given up another chunk of their sovereignty, until, one day, it is all gone. There is no escaping it.

The dilemma freedom seekers face is exactly as the below author describes – that the only way to fight the fascists is to grow the membership of an organization, where more members equals more power to fight and yet, the resulting action actually ends up further destroying your perceived sovereignty.

Ah, but you say, it is necessary, it is the only way to fight it. Perhaps so, but understand that the end result is always a compromise – a giving away of another portion of your rights. There is no escaping it. As the old saying about “spreading the wealth,” what happens when you have compromised everything away?

It’s not that you shouldn’t do what you believe necessary to accomplish what you think you can accomplish but it is to question whether the immediate action is the right one and to do that one must understand the fullness of their actions, first. Perhaps there is that needed “Power” through something other than a man creation. If we all had it, there would be no Question 3.

“The greatest strength of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is not in the individual himself, but in the greater community of gun owners and those they would share their love of firearms with. The anti-gun crowd is not just attacking us as individuals, but attacking our very right to have a community, so they can isolate and weaken us in the eventual hope of destroying our rights altogether.”<<<Read More>>>

question3confusing

Share

Maine Governor Says 3 Ballot Questions are “Unconstitutional”

According the Maine Wire, in an article written by Governor Paul LePage, he states: “As Governor, I am sworn to uphold the Constitutions of Maine and the United States of America. I take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, I carry a copy of the Constitution in my suit pocket every day.

In Maine, I believe three of the questions on the November ballot are unconstitutional. If they pass it will be impossible to uphold my oath of office.”<<<Read More>>>

To claim something to be “unconstitutional,” isn’t it a bit of an over-used excuse? One might even argue it a cliche. I am no constitutional scholar, and even though I did stay at a Holiday Inn once, I can’t say that qualifies me to be an expert. I am, however, perhaps a bit more versed in constitutional history than your average Joe – no offense intended to Joes everywhere.

I would assume that to declare that a law or proposed law to be “unconstitutional” it must be directly in opposition to the constitution of the state being referenced – in this case Maine, or the Federal Government. The author also says that he believes some of the ballot questions, if passed, would violate the U.S. Constitution as well. Would it?

First, a fundamental error often made by lay people, like myself, is lack of understanding between what might be considered “unconstitutional” and what could be “without precedence.”

In the case of the Maine Governor’s claim of the unconstitutionality of three ballot questions, I suppose we must take a look at the Maine Constitution first. Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, in part reads: “The Legislature, with the exceptions hereinafter stated, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.” Reads like a lawyer’s dream come true doesn’t it?

In this day and age of immorality, where wrong is now right, where bad is good, the end justifies the means, etc. what and who determines what is “reasonable” and “not repugnant?” Surely you understand that the Maine Constitution gives the Legislature the power and authority to “make and establish” any and all laws they deem in the best interest of the Maine (P)?people.

But such a delegation of power is not just found in the Maine Constitution. The U.S. Constitution states the same. In Article I, Section 8, we read: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Read that one a few times.

Is it not appropriate to question whether such constitutional statements give the Congress of the United States, and in this case, the state of Maine, authority to create and establish any law(s) they deem within the “reasonable,” “necessary,” and “proper” within the limiting (or not limiting) terms of the sections of the constitution?

If, in Maine, Question 3 is in violation of the Maine Constitution, Article I, Section 16, “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”, then perhaps the petition for citizen referral process is faulty by allowing “unconstitutional” proposals to find their way to a public vote. Cannot the Maine Legislature, upon acknowledgement that Question 3 violates Article I, Section 16, veto the law should it pass? Or does Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, of the Maine Constitution and U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, have legislative power over any and all other laws if deemed necessary by a partisan legislature?

But constitutional proclamations are not the only law of the land. Precedence and Policy, especially in this day and age of corrupt politics, certainly disregards any constitutional guidelines or regulations. We regularly are witness to the establishment of “Policy” with each successive administration voted into office.

Many of us recall when Speaker of the U.S. House was asked if the newly passed “Obamacare” was constitutional, her reply was “you’re kidding right?” Not that I think Nancy Pelosi is actually intelligent enough to understand what she was saying beyond her own ignorance, can there really be any questioning a passage of a law, that many of us do think is “unconstitutional” when the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government can operate under Article I, Section 8. With such authority, Congress can enact any law they well please, with perhaps some push back from the people to deal with. This push back only matters when it vote gathering time.

If there is any hope of fighting against those proposed laws, it is through the battle against Precedence and Policy and the creation of your own precedence and policy, if there is such a thing.

In Maine’s case, and the argument offered by the governor, it is my opinion that, via the referendum process, for what it’s worth, Question 3 goes beyond whether it’s constitutional or not and as such presents a poor argument against the proposal. While in this country Precedence and Policy have altered the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and in this case the State of Maine’s Right to Bear Arms, argument should be made about, not only the absolute destruction of an inalienable right, but that in Maine, there is no precedence or policy that dismantles the “never shall be questioned” aspect of Article I, Section 16. In addition, it should be vehemently pointed out that in the most recent Second Amendment voting in Maine, voters opted to begin tearing down the obstacles that destroy the liberty of self protection and the right to keep and bear arms, by passing a, so-called, Constitutional Carry law, in which Maine people, a plurality, wanted to be able to carry a concealed weapon without having to subject themselves to the strong arm of the Federal and State governments.

Now that’s precedence! Unconstitutional is a dead argument.

 

 

Share