This is in response to the guest column March 7 by William Hardwood and Larry Gilbert. Those two writers need some basic understanding of our laws and Constitution.
Title 25, regarding firearms, is quite clear and I was astonished to see a mayor of one of Maine’s largest cities, of all people, ignore such a clear and defining statute. The statute, in short, reads: "Regulation restricted. Except as provided in subsection 3, no political subdivision of the State, including, but not limited to, municipalities, counties, townships and village corporations, may adopt any order, ordinance, rule or regulation concerning the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration, taxation or any other matter pertaining to firearms, components, ammunition or supplies."
How can the Bureau of Parks and Lands justify banning concealed firearm permit holders from carrying firearms in state parks from May 1-Sept. 30? They have no authority and the Legislature does not have the authority to grant such powers.
The same argument should apply to Acadia National Park. Since when can a constitutional right be suspended for five months of a calendar year? Do they remember the two women massacred on the Appalachian Trail? I was attacked by a rabid fox that I quickly dispatched with my .32 Beretta Tomcat.
Article I Section 16 of the Maine Constitution reads: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." Even a fifth-grader can interpret that.
Paul J. Mattson Harrison
Report a correction
Bob~
the two women massacred on the Appalachian Trail
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.killed
Killed by a right wing wacko who hated lesbians. AND the coward struck while they were in their sleeping bags. Alot of good a gun would have been then.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'll never understand...
Why is it that those in opposition feel the need to attack people with whom they disagree? I, for one, can't help but want to argue for or against the merits of the argument and not the rhetoric attached to it. One is required to be open minded to be enlightened yet there is little open mindedness in partisan attacking.
The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It is incorporated as an amendment to the constitution, the second amendment. If you believe in the "militia" argument, consult the Supreme Court and their ruling in DC v. Heller. We have the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense.
If you have the right to tell me how, where, and when I can defend myself, I suppose I have the right to tell you how, when, and where you can express yourself. Or do I not? It has been long established that my right can't trump your right; I can't threaten you with a gun. That's what criminals do.
In the end, feel comforted in knowing that, while I carry a firearm everywhere I go, I do it for my protection, not to bother you.
Also, as a personal friend of Mr. Mattson, I know of the time he saved the Schwans Driver on Rt. 35 in Naples, headed toward Harrison, by shooting a dog that was attacking him. If you know the area, you also know there isn't a police officer withing 10 minutes of there. Fortunately, the man survived, though half of the skin on his arm was hanging off. Perhaps a better approach would have been to legislate the dog into submission.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What is the point of the
What is the point of the right to defend yourself, if you are restricted in how you defend yourself?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.List, please.
I wonder if anyone can supply a list of crimes committed on Acadia during the last five years (assault - both human and animal, rape, murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, etc.) that would require the use of deadly force for defense or supply a reason why every single inch of this state requires the use of a firearm. And don't give me that "I have a right..." bull crap. Doesn't cut it. You want to shoot something because you have a right? Go to New Hampshire where they live free or die.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bob writes
Bob writes, "And don't give me any of that 'I have a right' bull crap. Doesn't cut it." But, that's just the point. It DOES cut it. It's a Right guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution. Who are you to decide I can't excercise that right?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bill Bill Bill it is the Bill
Bill Bill Bill it is the Bill (get it) of Rights that makes the guarantee not the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights, which is recognized as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, lists many rights of individuals. It is important to note here why the a bill of rights was not originally included in the Constitution. Most of the Framers felt that any power to infringe upon individual rights would not be legal under the Constitution, since the power to infringe was not granted to the United States by the Constitution. But the arguments of the people who supported a bill of rights eventually prevailed, and guarantees were added to the Constitution within a few years. It is also important to note that the Bill of Rights does not grant people the listed rights. The Bill of Rights simply guarantees that the government will not infringe upon those rights.
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.
Are you a member of a Militia? Of course your not. Being a 'Bagger does not qualify even if you dress up in your knickers and three cornered hat.
Enough history for today now back to our comedy series Fox Snooze.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.According to US Law...
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
-------
So, if you are between 17 and 45, you are a member of the "unorganized" militia.
But regardless, the right protected by the 2nd Amendment is the "right of The People" to keep and bear arms, not the "right of the militia" or the "right of the States." It is an idividual right, just like the other rights in the Bill of Rights.
John Chick
Monmouth, ME
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.When it threatens me
No right in the Constitution is absolute. Just like you have no right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater you have no absolute right to carry firearms when the threat from that firearm out weighs your right to it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Riddle me this:
""Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." Even a fifth-grader can interpret that." Including felons? Aren't felons citizens? You mean that right is not absolute? When will you graduate fifth grade? Also, what does political subdivision of the State mean? Doesn't mean the State itself.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wasn't the mayor also
Wasn't the mayor also formerly a police chief, you'd think he understood the Constitution when it came to laws around guns...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Chief of Police...
..is most often a political appointee, which is why police chiefs usually go with whichever way the political wind is blowing. I've also noticed that most rank and file police officers and sherifs have no problem with our right to keep and bear arms. In some cases, they even encourage it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And in some cases, we don't
And in some cases, we don't encourage it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Also a U.S. Marshall for a
Also a U.S. Marshall for a spell.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Then why don't you ol' great
Then why don't you ol' great constitutional scholar that you are file a lawsuit on behalf of all those "deprived of their manhood girly men" like yourself... But I can tell you in a nutshell why they don't want people to have guns in these parks, it is because they can't legislate common sense and your side has little to offer in that regard.
PS and a hint that you have no clue, Acadia is a national park not a state park. Remember what I said about common and sense.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.They can't legislate intelligence either
Which is a shame because you, sir, could certainly benefit from that type of legislation.
If you had any proficiency in reading comprehension, you would have noticed that the author initially complained about a state action: "How can the Bureau of Parks and Lands justify banning concealed firearm permit holders from carrying firearms in state parks from May 1 - September 30?". It wasn't until later in his letter that the author also found fault with the "policy" of Acadia National Park. So, who doesn't have a clue?
As for a lawsuit, I don't have the financial resources to institute and follow through on anything of that sort - if I did, I'd initiate one immediately. I work for a living and did not inherit anything, which only makes me painfully aware of the state and federal governments' attempts to tax to oblivion what little I do earn and with their efforts to restrict or remove my individual rights.
And finally, I don't even own a gun, but I refuse to abide by any more government-proposed restrictions to buy, keep and utuilize one. It's my right.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.That's the problem. If you
That's the problem. If you keep law abiding citizens from carrying guns, the only ones carrying will be the criminals.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Erosion of Rights
This is just one more example of the "progressive", "liberal" agenda. (Note that those terms are oxymorons since the proponents are anything BUT liberal and progressive) These destroyers of personal freedoms want nothing less than reversal of all individual rights iterated in the constitutions of the United States and the fifty states so that the public will be totally dependent upon government for everything. It's all about power - right now the people have it (although they are slowly allowing the federal and state governments to usurp those powers). And unless more people recognize what is being misappropriated from them, one day we will all wake up to find that Orwell and Huxley were actually prophets, not just authors. The founders of America and the framers of the Constitution were painfully aware of the oppression that can be imposed by governments...if the people allow it. Since the beginning of the 20th century, many state and federal administrations have sought to exercise more and more power over the public through deceitful programs that espouse safety and general welfare, but in reality, those programs are simply more attempts by liberals/progressives/socialists to erode the rights endowed to us by our founding fathers and guaranteed by our Constitution. Wake up sheeple; demand the free exercise of your GUARANTEED RIGHTS and refuse to allow the leftists to take from you what is not theirs to take. The fundamental laws of this country are on your side...USE THEM OR LOSE THEM.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Steve writes: "This is just
Steve writes: "This is just one more example of the "progressive", "liberal" agenda. (Note that those terms are oxymorons since the proponents are anything BUT liberal and progressive)"
Hey Hambone - Those are YOUR Talk-Show Buzzwords......
Not ours.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.sorry
I am sadden to hear that you murdered a fox for your own selfish good. The world would be better off with the fox in this world than you. People don't have a right to carry guns into parks, period.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Did you not read the letter,
Did you not read the letter, T? The fox was rabid and attacked him.. What would you have done with the fox? Kiss it on the mouth and take it home for a house pet? You're not that numb, T...Why do you persist in acting that way?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.fox
Actually, it woulda been kind of cool if Tron HAD given it a big wet kiss on the mouth. Then we wouldn't have to listen to him now.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Don't feed the trolls...
Arrrg, even the parrot knows you shouldn't feed the trolls, Pirate.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.AARRGGHH!!!...we call 'em
AARRGGHH!!!...we call 'em "chum". Come to think of it, if the parrot continues some of his antics, he's apt to become "chum". (Oh, man, you should hear him screeching over that one). Your point is well taken, though, John.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm with Tron on this one, I
I'm with Tron on this one, I mean, the President tried to kill a Fox once and failed.......
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.That Fox is alive and well,
That Fox is alive and well, ain't it?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.