Poliquin: Yes to Mandatory Background Checks on Purchase of a Firearm

The state has the power but not the right so I wold not vote for the fellow on that issue alone.

What an IDIOT...He might as well pack it in now...It is OVER for him....

This is a game-changer. Has anyone reached Poliquin for comment?

I feel very different about this issue post DC v. Heller. More relaxed actually. I no records are kept, and there is absolute immunity from prosecution, and civil immunity for transfer following a SUCCESSFUL and APPROVED transfer, I could see it.

I will not vote for him based on this.

Sorry charlie, this is a no go. There is no other legally owned, private property that must be "approved" for sale between friends, relatives, neighbors that I am aware of. This BS background check foolishness is only a very obvious backdoor approach to total and complete firearms registration among law abiding citizens. "Bad guys" do not submit to these checks and systems and only "good guys" are involved, and that alone makes it ineffective for anything positive.

This kind of "nose under the tent" gun control makes those like Sarah Brady and Ethan Strimling salivate. It serves no real purpose and punishes those who follow the law in the first place.

Riddle me this Batman: If guns are so dangerous and need heavier regulation in Maine, why do the states with the strictest gun control laws have the highest rates of abuse where firearms are involved? The answer is obvious. When the "good guys" are denied the same level of protection and self defense as those who prey upon them, there can be only one outcome.

No increased gun control is necessary or wanted in Maine. Ask the "Maine Citizens Against Handgun (ownership) Violence" how effective their decade+ crusade has gone to further firearms regulation here. ZILCH! Thats how many legislative victories they have had. Even backed by Handgun Control (now named the more PC "Brady Project") and all 12 of the Million Mom March members, Maine has proven it is not interested in their propaganda. Its also interesting that all their repeated doomsday predictions and plea's for more control have all fallen flat on their face. What a surprise.

Poliquin is one less candidate we need to concern ourself about in this HUGE field of hopefulls.

heller vs DC gives me no comfort at all.

Why increase the power of government over us by having your right to defense subject to whether we are on a list somewhere.

When the founders put the 2nd in , did they think well of course anyone convicted of a domestic assault wouldn’t be protected under this clause

The conditions for being on a list are not static, you have veterans being put on a list because they sought psychiatric help after war, a bill before congress would put anyone on the no-fly list as prohibited to transfer

What will be the next prohibited class to come out of DC. Maybe that you think Government Sucks and have stated that publicly?

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA! -- Showstopper!

Man, he's dead to me before he ever got out of the gate!

Note to Mr. Poliquin: Nice going, Dumbass!

Unbelievable. There's no hope for this state.

Get a certain talk show host fitted for a dress. Poliquin needs a fat lady to sing. As a gun owner, I won't be voting for him.

I'd say I support him less now, but I was already at zero.

This is not a gaffe either, he watched all of his fellow republicans say no before he said yes. And it's been what, a week since it happened? If it were a gaffe he'd have already said so.

This is a core belief.

Game over man.

The only bad thing about this is that NRCM will not be wasting any more $$ on him.

Stick a fork in him he is done.

As a gun owner, I won't be voting for him.

This will make your guns harder to sell, every sale would have to go through a NICS registered FFL, which would mean a dealer. The market would be slowed down, and there would be transfer fees that would amount to a significant percentage of the sale price - dealers want $25-$50 to do these, if they will do them at all. This would instantly make your guns worth less to you, because selling them would harder and more expensive.

Good news for gun dealers, I'd think.

Also, how about interfamily sales and transfers? Does Bruce imagine those would be subject to NICS checks?

"Good news for gun dealers, I'd think."

And "good news" for the firearms INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE (esp the part that sells to private citizens) is bad -- - - - -------- why?

One of my earliest posts here was a back and forth with "Wingman" regarding the concept of "give and take". I wanted to point out that most people's "reasonable compromise" in the gun control arena involved ALL give, and no take, by us.

If I knew that there would be absolute immunity as a result of putting the firearm through a dealer, for BOTH dealer and seller, that's be something we do NOT have now. It also benefits the dealer. Finally, if you did not require entry of the firearm into the record books of the dealer unless the DEALER made a waarranty, there would be no permanent record of the transaction.

Also more dough for dealers, who pay for lots of lobbying and industry oomph against the gun grabbers.

Unless we get something we do NOT have now out of it, I think it is a nonstarter. However, nobody here seems willing to think "give and take". NICS was itself "give and take". It is easy. It has never, in my experience, delayed a firearms transaction for me.

To clarify my response regarding background checks on firearm sales, I DO NOT support requiring background checks on all gun purchases, and would strongly oppose any changes to broaden current law. I do not believe Maine needs any new gun laws.

As a lifetime member of the NRA, I grew up with guns in my family and have been out shooting with my father too many times to count. I taught my son to shoot before he was 10 years old. I am often asked my position on guns and the Second Amendment along the campaign trail and I have given the same consistent answer every time. I support the Second Amendment's constitutional protection of the rights of individuals to own guns. Period.

I hope that clears up any concern people may have. If you'd like to discuss the issue further, I invite you to call or email me, 232-4387, or bruce@bruceforme.com

Glad you cleared that up, and thanks, Bruce.

I'm confused....

And "good news" for the firearms INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE (esp the part that sells to private citizens) is bad

Because it is at the expense of gun buyers and owners, of which I am one.

Regulations impede the free market, and create imbalances. I am for LESS regulation, and more free market.

Anyone should be able to walk into Wal-Mart, point to a gun, plop the cash on the counter, and walk out with it. Even buying a rifle at Wal-Mart has become a major project, and many Wal-Marts are giving up their gun sales because of that.

As a result, firearms are becoming more exotic, and dealt primarily in specialty markets. The average consumer doesn't see them for sale, and so they become unusual and exotic to a non-gun owner.

Firearms should be made MORE commonplace, and people should be used to see them sold like any other commodity. The effort to make them specialized will kill the industry eventually, and fewer and fewer people are exposed to firearms, and so fewer and fewer people consider owning one.

So Bruce, why then did you say the opposite during the debate?

Is this a retraction, or a change in position?

So which is it ??? Does it just depend on where or who you are talking to ??? I find that even MORE disturbing....

Cleared up?

Bruce great to see you here, instead of those obnoxious kids you have working for you.

Did you clean house after the Otten video fiasco?

Once again. ANY new regulation / restriction / inconvenience / increased cost, etc will only be suffered by the "good guys". The "bad guys" don't and won't play the game. The net gain is ZERO and can't even be reasonably considered by anyone who understands the system.

Good Guys = Good Guys (and do good guy things) no matter what the laws are.

Bad Guys = Bad Guys (and do bad guy things) no matter what the laws are.

Making guns more restrictive in ANY capacity will have ZERO positive impact. Some things ARE black and white and I can not be proven wrong in this matter. Its like math and the laws of gravity. We can wish for a different outcome all we want but the answer is ALWAYS the same.

No new gun laws. Period. No compromise. Period. No increased regulations / fees. Period.

I have yet to watch the video (no sound on the machine I am currently on) so I am anxious to find out how Mr. Poliquin can be against new gun laws after he is in favor of them. I'll watch as soon as I can.

So which is it ??? Does it just depend on where or who you are talking to ??? I find that even MORE disturbing

Ditto!

Classic politician response. Gave one answer to one crowd, thought nothing of it for more than a week. Someone discovers it and he flips his position. This is nothing more than a politician trying to pander. Bruce you are anti-gun, the video does not lie. All of the Republicans answered NO before you, then you state YES at the end. Now that you see it is not a good political position you flip. Bruce answer this question - how long have you been a life-time member of the NRA? I hope it has not been since you starting running. I AM A life-time NRA member and any true member would NEVER get this question wrong.

Bruce, you said this (emphasis added):
"I DO NOT support requiring background checks on all gun purchases"

"All" is the term of note.
I assume this means you support mandatory background checks on SOME gun purchases. I think you need to clarify which ones.
Gun shows?

Ed, I appreciate the inquiry. No, it's not a retraction. The question from Phil Harriman was "mandatory background check on purchase of firearm?". As you know, in Maine we do have mandatory background checks on firearms purchased from federally licensed dealers. I support upholding that law, which is why I said 'yes'. I do not support extending the law to include ALL gun purchases – which is not what the question asked.

I know that this is going to be a contentious primary, and I appreciate vigorous debate. I just want to make sure the record is clear.

Thank you for the input, Bruce Poliquin.

Bruce, thanks for the response.
What is your position on background checks for gun shows?

It was a misleading question. Thank you for clarifying Bruce.