Historically — by labeling them “the end to hunting in Maine” — all proposed gun laws have been defeated. I don’t feel that the outcome on Question 3 matters, because laws don’t prevent gun crimes.

In December 2006, investigator Phil Dugas from the Maine Wardens Service described what he said was the greatest display of negligence he had seen in all his years investigating hunting incidents. Forensic evidence left him with only two possible conclusions: “(Timothy) Bean shot at movement in the bushes,” or “He murdered your daughter.”

The existing trespass law, Title 17-A ss 402, wasn’t enough to keep Bean off my property or ask first.

Bean didn’t comply with the existing civil trespass law, Title 12 ss 10657, before he fired the fatal shot.

Title 12 ss 11222, the existing target identification law, specifically enacted because of “hunters” like Bean who shoot at “movement in the bushes” and display an attitude of if “it’s brown, it’s down,” also had no influence on him.

Title17-A ss 203, the existing manslaughter law with its possible 30 years incarceration that forbids “Recklessly, or with criminal negligence, causes the death of another human being,” did not prevent the death of our innocent child.

This very real tragedy proves criminals don’t care about laws. Therefore, I submit it is time to abandon unrealistic hopes of prevention and seek mandatory enforcement and punishment as the objective.

If leadership from both sides of this contentious issue would meet somewhere in the middle and combine efforts, I believe progress could be made while protecting each other’s constitutional rights. Enforcement of current laws and mandatory punishment are two such areas.

Justice demands we force the hands of deal-making prosecutors and lenient judges. If justice were applied with vigor, both sides would get what they want. Criminals go to jail, guns are out of their hands and the Second and Fourth Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens are protected.

Both sides must demand that when it comes to gun crimes, overcrowded jails and heavy caseloads don’t outweigh justice.

Meaningful punishment may be the only relief available to the offended, their sometimes-shattered families and society. In our case, where there was a conviction, the subsequent sentencing was an affront to rational understanding. Facing the possibility of a 30-year sentence, Bean received a jail sentence of 30 days and was required to make a public service video. It actually turned into 18 days of being incarcerated and him avoiding the video until the judicial system had no more power over him.

It is also time that society holds those knowledgeable in the commission of gun crimes accountable. Title 17-A ss 57, the existing accomplice law, did not move Bean, or any of his family, to call the authorities. Instead they sat idly by, knowing family felons Andrew and Steven were violating gun laws year after year with no consequences.

Any new or existing laws require the resources for implementation and enforcement. Both sides working together could demand legislators fund agencies such as the IF&W and Maine’s prison system. We must undo the unfortunate policies and procedures that have made money the reason enforcement agencies are hesitant to waste their time writing summonses or pursuing cases.

I also submit that people, as a society, are willing to get pre-qualified for a multitude of things. When buying cigarettes or beer, people show a form of background check called a state-issued ID. To drive on public highways, people must go through testing before licensure. Consequently, I choose to see an inquiry into my character and prior behavior as a way to guarantee my Second Amendment rights — not a restriction or prohibition of them.

I would hope those people who did not support Question 3 would acknowledge that some modifications would be acceptable. And, hopefully, those who supported Question 3 would acknowledge that banning guns from law-abiding citizens is not a realistic goal.

This time, supporters of Question 3 made the tactical error of taking on all gun ownership at once. That being said, I know they are smart enough to try to “divide and conquer” next time — making the next referendum target hand guns or semi-automatic rifles only. If they went that route, history and statistics show they would be opposed by about only 45 to 50 percent of hunters. That difference in voter turnout could change the outcome dramatically.

A grass-roots movement, led by Mainers, could accomplish a multitude of good for everyone, but it must keep outside big money and paid executives from leading the discussion, because money is their priority, not the people of Maine.

Troy Ripley is a resident of Paris. His daughter, Megan Ripley, was shot and killed in December of 2006 while on her own property.