It’s just nuts that Maine has tough restrictions on fireworks but is reluctant to apply the same type of standards on military-style, semiautomatic firearms.

As a state, should we really say no to bottle rockets and say yes to .50-caliber sniper rifles that the military uses primarily to destroy equipment and attack armored vehicles?

When Congress allowed a federal ban on military-style, semiautomatic weapons to expire last year, gun control advocates vowed to bring forward a state ban.

On Monday, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee heard testimony on L.D. 1579, which would impose restrictions on the sale, possession and manufacture of several types of firearms in Maine.

Introduced by Portland Sen. Ethan Strimling, the bill faces an uphill fight in the Legislature, which is often held in thrall by the powerful gun lobby and its local muscle, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.

In March 2004, Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence conducted a statewide poll about gun issues. Of those asked, 72.5 percent supported the federal ban on military-style weapons, which are commonly called assault weapons. In the same poll, 71.5 percent said they would support a state ban if Congress allowed the federal law to expire. Even 68.9 percent of self-defined gun owners said they supported the ban. The Maine Chiefs of Police also support the legislation.

As the bill is written, it is more restrictive than the federal ban and adds a new class of weapon, the .50-caliber sniper rifle. The weapon is incredibly destructive with an effective range of more than a mile. According to a U.S. Senate report on the weapon, it carries as much energy at 1 miles as a point-blank shot from a .44 calibre Magnum. It has no practical purpose outside of the military.

After the federal ban expired last year, there was no great surge of violent crime involving these high-powered guns. But that’s not particularly reassuring. Assault weapons have been found at the scene of several crimes, and a .50-caliber rifle was among the weapons used by the Branch Davidians during the 1993 siege in Waco. According to a CBS News report this year on the guns, the FBI had brought in Bradley fighting vehicles for protection during the fighting, but it wasn’t enough. They needed heavier armor to withstand the fire from the .50-caliber rifle.

A state-by-state ban will never be as effective as national legislation, but with Congress unwilling to act, it’s left to Maine to do the best job possible. Strimling has said that he’s willing to amend the legislation to make it less onerous to gun-rights advocates and to allow Bushmaster Firearms, a gun manufacturer in the state, to make the weapons for the military use or export to states that don’t have a ban. He’s willing to bend, he said, to keep as many of these weapons as possible off the streets.

The bill would allow the attorney general to make additions to the list of guns specifically outlawed, and the Department of Public Safety has expressed concerns about administration. Those problems can be addressed.

We understand that many people are committed to fighting any gun-control measure and that, to many, these guns are harmless toys used for amusement by law-abiding citizens. But the designed purpose of military-style, semiautomatic weapons and .50-caliber sniper rifles is more nefarious. It’s to kill people. Limiting their numbers and availability is a serious public safety measure.

The Public Safety Committee is expected to vote on the bill Thursday. It’s still possible to fashion a compromise that bans the most dangerous of these weapons.

Where are the Legislature’s priorities when it bans bottle rockets and Roman candles but allows long-range, armor-busting rifles? We don’t need either, and encourage the Legislature to act by supporting the proposed ban.