Poll: Mainers support some gun restrictions

PORTLAND — A poll says Mainers own more guns than most Americans but also are more supportive of restrictions on semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

The poll commissioned by The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram says 79 percent of Mainers support some restrictions on gun ownership. A third of respondents said their views were influenced by the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn.

The poll by Critical Insights says 55 percent of Maine adults have a gun on their property and that 73 percent of gun owners say they use them for hunting. The poll indicates gun ownership is far higher in northern counties than in southernmost Maine.

The poll, based on telephone interviews with 600 adults, has a margin of error of 4 percentage points for the statewide results.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



AL PELLETIER's picture

Just like the NRA

Everyone of you assault weapon loving fools do nothing but throw gas on the fire. The more you scream 2ND AMENDMENT and do nothing to come up with better ideas the worse it's gonna get. Public and political sentiment is not in your corner anymore.
Big Brother may come up with something none of us gun owners want. It just can't be black and white, there has to be some grey! Don't we get enough of that black and white bullshit out of congress while the rest of America suffers?
As I write this, 30 days have past since Newtown and I'm still wiping tears from my face. I'm tired of this sadness. I'm tired of seeing families of love ones crying. I'm tired of reading and writing letters regarding these senseless massacres. And I'm especially tired of listening to, and reading from, people who say what we have now is just hunky dory.

Robert McQueeney's picture

Another law????

So criminals have used guns to kill. How will a law against law abiding citizens prevent a criminal from using his guns in an unlawful manner?

How about when a criminal uses his gun in the act of a crime, we throw the book at him and toss the key to his cell. Say, add 50 years to his sentence, just because he had a gun while he committed the crime? That just might be the real deterrence we need. Leave law abiding citizens alone.

 's picture

Our Legislators...

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right."

Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (27 June 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.

Dan Beggs's picture

Not to be infringed

What area was polled Portland I dont know this 79% maine people will not be swayed because people in portland dont like guns. The rest of the state does not agree with the loud mouth radical whiners and liberally slanted media. If they can restrict the 2nd amendment whats next limits on free speech guaranteed by the 1st . Each man is responsible for his own actions period. The fate of the state or the nation should not be decided because you denied me my rights so you would FEEL better. the constitution is a system of checks and balances not to be infringed by the communist and marxists that have taken over the government.

Mark Elliott's picture

The left seems to

The left seems to forget.....we are a republic form of government where the rights of INDIVIDUALS are protected. Not a democracy where a bunch of thugs can trample us!

AL PELLETIER's picture

Just as I thought.

The average Mainer, all 79% of them, know some gun laws just have to change, (and they will). I only hope those changes closely resemble Gabby and Mark's plan which doesn't infringe on us sportsman's rights.
Please go to www.americansforresponsiblesolutions.org and get on board for positive and fair changes in our gun laws before Washington shoves something down our throats that we don't want.
This time around the NRA,s money will not stop the movement taking place in DC.

 's picture

You thought wrong...

Al, with all due respect, please explain how passing another law will prevent a mentally disturbed person from doing this again?

I'll bet that 100% of Mainers agree that what happened was tragic. We would all agree that we must try to prevent similar tragedies from happening again. Where we disagree is the steps we should take.

Those who are focusing on the firearms are not thinking this through logically. How many laws were broken a few weeks ago by that young man? The laws did NOTHING to stop him. We need to focus on the people who do these kinds of things and find a way to get them the help they need before it reaches this point. We also need to find better ways to keep mentally disturbed people from harming themselves and others.

What we DO NOT need to do is trample the 2nd Amendment (or Article 1 Section `16 of the State of Maine Constitution) under foot and throw it out because mentally disturbed people do bad things with guns.

RONALD RIML's picture

So according to John Chick's "Logic"

Laws should be thrown out as some person - for some reason - will disobey them.

And John has the audacity to refer to "mentally disturbed people?"

I rest my case.

 's picture

That is not what I said.

Admittedly, there are probably a lot of laws on the books that should be thrown out, but that is NOT what I said.

But since we are on the subject, perhaps Mr. Jefferson carries more weight than I do:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

I suppose my desire to see that people get the help they need is audacious, especially in this political climate where everyone wants to point fingers at the "other side" rather than work together as Americans to resolve these issues in a civilized matter. So be it. Call me audacious.

It is obvious that people who commit such atrocities are not in their right mind. Placing the focus on the object used to commit such crimes does not help the perpetrator or the victim(s).

Why don't you just be honest and admit that you just don't like guns, especially scarey looking ones?

RONALD RIML's picture

Criminology -like Medicine; has advanced since 1764

Do you still ascribe to 'Bloodletting' as a cure??

Oh, pardon the pun - as a gun-owner it is in your 'Medical Bag'

 's picture

Tell me where in the 2nd

Tell me where in the 2nd amendment does it mention anything about hunting or sportsman's rights?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

It doesn’t. The second

It doesn’t. The second amendment simply gives the right to keep and bear Arms period!

Mark Elliott's picture

and "being necessary to the

and "being necessary to the security of a free state" can only mean one thing. We must be prepared to defend our country and we can't do that today with muskets!

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."

AL PELLETIER's picture

Good point, Glenn

Lets see what proposals Joe Biden hands over to Obama this Tuesday. I hope those proposals won't effect us guys who don't use semi-auto assault weapons with a 30 round clips to kill Bambi.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

What would you think if Biden

What would you think if Biden goes after all center fire semi-automatics as he is rumored to do?

RONALD RIML's picture

If it's in the 'Rumor Mill' it must be true

Then he's got Balls. Big .90 calibre Elephant Gun Balls.......

AL PELLETIER's picture

Fine with me

I hunt with my 30-30 lever action.

 's picture

Enjoy it while you have it.

As others have commented, Dianne Feinstein and company will not stop until the american public is disarmed. It may not be this time around, nor the next, but many of them have already stated as such. That lever action 30-30, at one time, was a state of the art battle rifle. Not to mention the fact that the 30-30 cartridge is more powerful than either of the rounds used by the AK-47 or the AR-15.

Either we all stand together, Al, or.... well, you get the idea.

AL PELLETIER's picture


I beg to differ. The .223 to .243 caliber may spit out a smaller projectile then a 30-30 but the higher muzzle velocity produces a projectile that has more speed, penetration and explosive destruction. But who's splitting hairs when your mowing down 20 kids ?
And as for Dianne Feinstein----run for your lives, the sky is falling, the sky is falling said Chicken Little. Ain't gonna happen!

 's picture

Any firearm ban will set a

Any firearm ban will set a dangerous precedent.
Senator Dianne Fienstein has said herself that the ultimate goal is to remove firearms from private citizens.
Anyone who thinks they (Government) will just stop at Semi-automatic Assault weapons is seriously deluded.

Mark Elliott's picture

Yes, Dianne Feinstein wanted

Yes, Dianne Feinstein wanted them all the last time and I believe she wants them all this time!


MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yet Dianne Feinstein herself

Yet Dianne Feinstein herself carries a concealed weapon and is surrounded by armed bodyguards.

Moreover, I encourage readers to research Richard Blum, Dianne Feinstein’s husband, and all the government contracts the his company is awarded. In my opinion, I see a clear double standard in which rules apply to Dianne and the rest of us.


Just because it does not

Just because it does not affect you (and me) is no reason to go along with this. We Americans have given up too many rights too meekly. The constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms and while the drafters of the constitution could not foresee the average American owning a so called assault rifle nor could they foresee a criminal doing so. Any restriction on law abiding citizens gun ownership will only make life easier and better for criminals who pay no heed to any law. It is time for Obama, Biden and others to open their eyes and minds and see that the one thing all thesse mass killings have in common is a mentally deranged person.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Ray, I couldn't agree more

Mental issues have to be dealt with, violence in video games for youngsters have to be dealt with, and the availability of these God awful people killing machines have to be dealt with. Gabby and Mark's plan addresses all three.
Mark my words, congress will not come up with money to address mental health issues. The video industry has already brought in their world renown (and most likely highly paid) experts that have testified that violent video games do not contribute to violent behavior. What the hell is left?
Your statement about the drafters could not foresee is absolutely right. If they could today, they'd probably be turning in their graves! Back then, single shot muzzle loaders were what was needed to have a ready militia and people weren't screwed up in the head by all this electronic garbage our kids are exposed to. Parents brought their kids up to believe in God and read the good book. School teachers could put a ruler to your open hand to keep you in line.
Yes, if our founding fathers could see what our country has become they would be asking for erasers.

Mark Elliott's picture

"shall not be infringed"

"shall not be infringed" means just that and our founder would wholeheartedly agree still today! The 2A was written to allow us to fight any tyrannical government entity........and that can only mean, we must have equal or better equipment!

Remember, when our founders talked of "free travel", they only had horse and buggy at the time! Does this mean, since we now have death machines flying down our highways, that we should no longer be allowed to "travel freely"?

 's picture

If our Founding Fathers...

.. could see how their experiment turned out, they would be appalled at how huge we have let government become.

BTW, back then, a single shot muzzle loader was a state of the art battle implement. And "arms" did not refer to just muskets, but also to swords (and some say even small field artillery). Tench Coxe had the following to say about the subject:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Mark Elliott's picture

While I personally don't need

While I personally don't need a 30 round mag......mostly because it takes only 2 seconds to swap out a smaller one, I also have no real need for a gas guzzling suv either.....but who am I to tell others what THEY need or don't need??

I will NOT support any more restrictions on firearms because history shows, every time we "allow" the government to take an inch......they grab a whole foot.

It takes two seconds to swap out a magazine and the national average response time to a 911 call is 10 minutes, OR 600 seconds. All this focus, money and resources just to get a 2 second gain on a 600 second event just makes no sense when we can go so much further with those same resources by focusing on reducing the response time! If we shave only 1 minute off the response time, that's 30 times more gain than banning large capacity magazines. What if we could cut the response time down to 1 minute?.......................ban "gun free zones" instead!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I'm with you Mark.

What do all these individuals have in common?

Adolf Hitler – Promoted Gun Control
Joseph Stalin – Promoted Gun Control
Menito Mussolini – Promoted Gun Control
Mao Tze Tung – Promoted Gun Control
Pol Pot – Promoted Gun Control
Fedel Castro – Promoted Gun Contol
Hugo Chaves – Promotes Gun Control
Karl Marx – Promoted Gun Control
Barak Obama – Promotes Gun Control
Ted Kennedy – Promoted Gun Control
Nancy Pelosi – Promotes Gun Control
Diane Feinstein – Promotes Gun Control

All of the individuals named above promoted or promotes gun control in the name of “SAFETY”. That is what all these individuals have in common.

 's picture

Yes, and if we allow the

Yes, and if we allow the government to do the same to us, it won't belong before history repeats itself.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Historically all malevolent

Historically all malevolent governments started controlling the populous with gun control under the guise of safety and security.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...