Ballot Fight in Maine

Looks like Bloomberg has managed to buy his way to enough signatures in Maine that we’ll have ourselves a ballot fight there come election time. Like I’ve said before, unless we can punch him back hard with a loss in one or both of these states, he’s going to keep running this game in every state out there, and he has the money to outspend us.

Keep in mind that none of Bloomberg’s proposals make it illegal to change the title of a firearm (i.e. sell it to someone else) without going through an FFL. The ballot measure in Washington made any transfer (i.e. handing a firearm to someone else) illegal, except for certain limited exception. In Washington State currently, it is technically illegal to shoot with a friend on your own property, or on public land, or anywhere else that’s not a “bonafide shooting range” (i.e. well, we really don’t know what that means) or at a sanctioned match. Classroom training is illegal in Washington State, technically, if you use a firearm that you do not own. This has nothing to do with public safety. It has everything to do with sneaking restrictive measures in under the guise of something that sounds reasonable to average non-gun-owning voters.

Let us not also forget that banning private transfers and sales amounts to de-facto registration. Let us also not forget that after Sandy Hook NRA A-rated Senator Coburn offered a proposal that would apply background checks to all changes of title, but that dealt with our concerns regarding the de-facto registration component, and Chuck Schumer laughed it out of the room. Let us also not forget their refusal to exempt people with concealed carry licenses (who already have gone through the background check) from the private transfer ban, as we do here in Pennsylvania with handguns for temporary transfers (i.e. not change of title).

As the Mainer who notified me of this noted, “The UBC proposal is being driven and financed by out-of-state interests (read: Bloomberg). As a general rule, Mainers DO NOT appreciate being told how to live their lives by outsiders.” Spread the word, because if we don’t beat Bloomberg, this is coming to every state that has a ballot. Ballot measures come down to one thing: who spends the most money, and we cannot outspend Mike Bloomberg.

15 Responses to “Ballot Fight in Maine”

  1. Jim Jones says:

    I’m sorry you gents have to fight this crap. Let us know if there is anything we can do to help. Thankfully for my selfish purposes, WI does not allow ballot initiatives.

  2. Maine Constitutional Carry says:

    Thank you for bringing attention to this deceptive attempt by Bloomberg to implement gun control in Maine.

    A massive educational effort will be required to defeat this proposal, but we can do it. Consider that many Mainers were initially opposed to Constitutional Carry – and yet Mainers were able to learn about the virtues of CC and pass it.

    That same CC coalition can defeat UBC in Maine.

    Below is my attempt at a “cliff notes” listing of why Bloomberg’s UBC gun control should be OPPOSED by Maine voters (in no particular order):

    1. Practically all the recent mass killers either passed a background check and/or stole the weapons they used. The background checks proved to be useless.

    2. We can be assured that the criminal element will “universally” not subject themselves to these background checks, and yet still obtain whatever weapons they want.

    3. The Universal Background Checks can only be implemented with Universal Gun Registration (which history shows ultimately leads to Universal Gun Confiscation).

    4. This proposal is deceptively “sold” (and polled) as coming into play during the PURCHASE (i.e. change of ownership) of a firearm, however, the actual details of the proposal also affects the POSSESSION of firearms (e.g. loaning a gun to a hunting buddy for hunting season / transfer of a gun during a self-defense scenario).

    5. Universal Background Checks result in a de facto a ban on handgun ownership for 18 to 21 year olds since Federal Law prohibits a Federal Firearms Licensee to transfer a handgun to anyone under the age of 21.

    6. There is something inherently wrong in requiring citizens to obtain prior permission from the government before exercising U.S. Constitutional Rights.

    7. The UBC proposal is being driven and financed by out-of-state interests (read: Bloomberg). As a general rule, Mainers DO NOT appreciate being told how to live their lives by outsiders.

    8. The UBC proposal is in violation of the Maine State Constitution; “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms and this right shall NEVER be questioned”.

    9. Mandating that citizens of a large rural state travel far distances to meet up at a Federal Firearm Dealer to get approval for a firearms transfer is an unfair burden on the exercise of their 2nd Amendment civil rights.

    10. Maine is one of the safest states in the nation, there is certainly no need for additional criminal checks on the citizenry.

    11. This proposal is just another burdensome regulatory requirement and taxation. Instead, we need to be reducing regulations as Maine successfully did with Constitutional Carry.

    12. The ATF recently announced that it is already struggling with the current volume of gun background checks due to very high gun sales. The ATF also announced that there will be delays in the appeals process for those citizens denied gun purchases. Adding more background checks will only make these two situations worse.

    Final Note: This whole issue reminds me of the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” whereby the general public’s confusion between full-auto and semi-auto was used to ban military-style rifles with certain cosmetic features (this law “sun-setted” 10 years later in 2004). One can only hope that the Maine people will be smart enough not to fall for this UBC deception.

    • Maine Constitutional Carry says:

      Some further information regarding #4 above:

      It is important to put the UBC POSSESSION requirements into perspective.

      The POSSESSION aspect of UBC essentially treats Title I firearms (i.e. America’s 300+ million guns) similarly to Title II NFA (National Firearms Act) firearms whereby only ATF approved NFA registered individuals, or ATF approved NFA Trustees can even “touch” the Title II firearm.

      Title II NFA firearms include machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, and any other weapons. Possession of these items requires a detailed and lengthy ATF approval process and a one-time $200 tax stamp payment.

      To place “NFA-like/lite” POSSESSION requirements on America’s 300+ million guns is an EXTREME infringement on our gun rights.

      • HSR47 says:

        I’m not sure that this is a particularly good point to bring up for a large variety of reasons. Largely though, the small minority of the population that will understand the analogy that you’re making already understand why Bloomberg’s ballot measures are so insidious; On the other hand, those that don’t understand the analogy will likely hear “machineguns… most dangerous…” and tune everything else out, in which case it will likely prove counterproductive.

        A better analogy is that such proposals are like mandating that you should be required to do a title transfer (including the time, travel, and cost that requires) to borrow your uncle’s pickup truck, and then the same process again in order to return it: That you should be prohibited from driving any vehicle not titled to you.

        In plain English, that makes it clear to many people (including people who aren’t “gun people.”) that Bloomberg’s initiatives move to treat temporary changes in immediate possession as permanent changes in ownership, and it further demonstrates why that would be both unreasonable and intolerable.

      • Sebastian says:

        ATF has considered that as long as the NFA owner maintains control over the Title II firearm, they can let someone else shoot it provided that person is not prohibited from possessing firearms. Otherwise there would be no full auto rentals.

        So in a sense this is worse, because the laws proposed (and passed in Washington State) imply that the mere handoff of a firearm to someone else is always illegal, except for limited exceptions.

    • Maine Constitutional Carry says:

      Some further information regarding #12 above.

      Oregon implemented Bloomberg’s Universal Background Checks and it is now getting very bad for gun owners there (no recourse for “false positive” UBC gun sale denials).

      This is an indication of where they would like to take Maine.

      “Virtually not a day goes by that we don’t hear from someone who has been delayed or denied without cause by the bureaucrats in the ID unit. Until now, gun buyers at least had the safeguard of being legally allowed to take possession of the firearm after three days if they had not been officially “denied.” Under this proposed legislation, even that safeguard will be stripped away.

      Under LC 263 if the OSP choses to delay your purchase, you are simply out of luck. They may delay it forever.

      The OSP ID Unit has made it their policy to ignore or stonewall any effort to correct faulty information that leads to delays and denials. We hear from people regularly who cannot get their calls returned and thus have their rights eliminated until the ID unit gets around to investigating the delay or denial.

      The ATF has suspended processing appeals by people who have been denied without cause”

  3. Countertop says:

    What happened after HSUD tried a ballot measure to ban bear hunting, financed with the billions from the woman wh owns Burts Bees lip balm?

    Money helps, but education helps too. Maine is next to Massachussets but so is Vermont and New Hampshire. My sense is that Bloomberg faces an uphill battle here.

    • Maine Constitutional Carry says:


      The bear hunting ban referendum was defeated in Maine via a strong coalition of hunters, guides, gun owners, etc. It helped that Gov LePage and most legislators were against the ban, as well as the Maine Dept of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

      A similar coalition will beat this Bloomberg UBC referendum fraud as well (God willing).

  4. FiftycalTX says:

    Are you still ALIVE? I thought the GLOBAL WARMING BLIZZARD was going to kill all life N of the Mason Dixon? Oh well. What needs to be emphasized is the NEXT step. If you have “universal background checks”, you have to have REGISTRATION! And it won’t do to have REGISTRATION if you don’t have an AUDIT. So now you have the UK “solution” of cops coming INTO YOUR HOME to “check” your “storage”. And of course, WHO IS GOING TO PAY for this “safety”? I own XX guns. Do I pay XX per year so socialists can “feel” safe? Will it cost me XXX or XXXX? At what point do I quit owning gunz because it is too expensive? Or do I become a “bad guy” because I WILL NOT PAY THEIR TRIBUTE? We are getting down to the end days. Either we RESIST or it’s give up your gunz day.

    • Sebastian says:

      It has yet to begin. Soon it will, and yetis will be falling from the sky and ravaging the countryside. At least that’s what the Cable news seemed to be saying.

      • FiftycalTX says:

        Let me tell you about COLD! It’s 53 degrees and the sun is setting. Soon (about 4 am) it will be FREEZING! I’m starting a fire so my electric bill doesn’t SKY ROCKET like Obama promised. Have fun. It only snows here about once every 10 years or so. Never more than an inch.

  5. Greg says:

    I no longer call it registration, it is a gun confiscation data base.

  6. alanstorm says:

    …and from their other orifices comes a constant bleat about the evil of money in politics.

    No self-awareness at all.

  7. Jim says:

    As far as Washington State goes, the majority of gun owners are ignoring the new law, and that includes Law Enforcement Officers.

    • Maine Constitutional Carry says:


      Yes, civil disobedience, non-enforcement, jury nullification, repeal efforts, and legal challenges are the next lines of defense against these unconstitutional laws.