HOLDEN, Maine — The president of the National Rifle Association traveled to Maine on Thursday to endorse Republican Charlie Summers in his bid to fill Maine’s open U.S. Senate seat.
At an endorsement event at Maine Military Supply, NRA president David Keene doubted Summers’ main rival, independent former Gov. Angus King, on his support for gun rights in light of backing he has received from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a vocal gun control advocate.
“It’s incredibly important that there be a bipartisan majority of gun supporters in the Senate,” Keene said.
The NRA endorsement came the same week King traveled to New York for a fundraiser hosted by Bloomberg at his Manhattan home. And it came a day after Bloomberg announced plans to form a super-PAC supporting about a dozen candidates nationwide, including King. According to Bloomberg’s announcement, the super-PAC will back candidates who support policies to crack down on illegal guns and reform education policy.
Bloomberg also has contributed $500,000 to a third-party campaign by the nonprofit group Americans Elect to boost King’s campaign.
“Michael Bloomberg’s an investor,” Keene said. Investors “put up $500,000 because they expect a return.”
Summers said he opposes any new restrictions on gun ownership and that he opposes renewing an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, which the NRA strongly opposes.
Putting in place new gun restrictions won’t deter crime, he said Wednesday during a Bangor Daily News editorial board meeting. “Some of the laws that are discussed I don’t think will accomplish anything,” Summers said. “I think, at best, it would be feel-good legislation.”
King doesn’t support renewing the assault weapons ban, either, but he supports the Brady Bill, which requires that people buying guns through licensed dealers pass background checks. He also supports extending the background check requirement to gun shows, where private dealers can sell guns without conducting background checks.
“The idea was keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them,” King said Wednesday during a separate BDN editorial board meeting.
King said he doesn’t support extending the background check requirement to casual gun sales between individuals.
On the assault weapons ban, King said it didn’t prove effective in the 10 years it was law.
“The labeling of a gun as an assault weapon didn’t seem to have an impact,” King said, citing Chris Shays, who co-sponsored the assault weapons ban in the 1990s as a Republican member of the U.S. House but said in July he opposes its renewal. “That definition is complicated and not very meaningful.”
Bloomberg and King differ on the assault weapons ban. The New York mayor called on President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney in July to push for a ban on assault rifles and more strictly enforce existing gun laws. Bloomberg’s comments followed this summer’s shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., when a heavily armed gunman killed 12 people and injured 58.
Democratic state Sen. Cynthia Dill supports renewing the assault weapons ban and supports pending legislation to extend background check requirements to gun shows.
“I support the 2nd Amendment and Maine’s hunting culture,” she said during a third BDN editorial board meeting. “I reject the notion that because of the 2nd Amendment, we cannot regulate firearms.”
“I think the NRA has outsize political influence,” she added.
The National Rifle Association is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, D.C., largely due to its ability to rally its base of 4 million members to support gun-friendly politicians and oppose candidates who support gun control.
In Maine, the group has supported U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, a Democrat, in his bid for re-election to a sixth term.
“We are your classic one-issue group, in terms of politics. We’re here to support the 2nd Amendment,” Keene said. “If you support the 2nd Amendment, and you’re in office, and you vote on 2nd Amendment issues the way we think you should, we will not desert you, regardless of your party or your opponent.”
BDN Outdoors Editor John Holyoke contributed to this report.
I love it when the right says, you have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion Does that mean you have freedom to have a gun, but not freedom to the bullets?
While there is no necessary connection between being in favor of very limited gun control laws and religious views on, say, same sex marriage and abortion rights, usually, I think it’s fair to to note, those in favor of the overall freedom to purchase, carry, and use guns are those usually opposed to same sex marriage and to women’s right to have abortions. Freedom indeed frequently is sought in one context and opposed in another by the same persons. But then most of those Americans opposed to abortion are strongly supportive of a strong military engaged in action abroad that is bound to lead to death. They never concede any possible contractions in their “pro-life” positions.
Very well said.
This was great! Sadly I’m not sure those whom you’re talking about will be “really” be able to understand what you’ve just said. Some folks only hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest, or perhaps simply can’t remember the life’s lessons they should have learned from any point in time past five minutes.
Great post mero, great reply bunyan!!
And what about the freedom of the unborn human being that you supposedly have the
“right” to murder for the simple fact that you can’t handle the responsibility
or perhaps you weren’t quite happy with the baby’s sex or genetic make-up? You know you also have the right to keep your legs closed and to purchase some cheap, easy-to-find contraception.
As far as homosexual marriage is concerned, once I am provided the freedom from the immoral, unconstitutional income and property taxes in this country, I’ll consider providing the ‘freedom’ to those who wish to change the definition of a basic human
relationship that has stood as the bulwark of human societal advance for millennia.
Sad to see so many simple minded people preaching about freedom when they don’t even recognize the obvious misgivings of their own tyrannical ideology.
Your logic re pregnancy caused by rape or incest or other involuntary means sounds much the illogic of would-be Missouri Senator Todd Akin. Anyone who thinks that your way isn’t open to serious discussion. And I bet you oppose most govt. programs to help the poorest Americans but are concerned only with the unborn. It’s a waste of time trying to reply further.
He didn’t mention rape or incest.
poppycock bulwark of human society… lol.
Dude the greeks and romans, the people we modeled much of our society and from which most European/western “civilization evolved” were super sexually free. homosexuality was very common and no one really thought much of it.
So you are going to help all those unwanted babies?
I think you are way off base with this comment. I think by in large at least in the circles I am involved with and from what I have seen first hand; firearms owners are at the very least uninterested in many social problems and most a freedom loving and supporting people.
I am a NRA and GOA member, I am in support of gay marriage, abortion I am 50/50 on, I find the practice morally questionable BUT where it is a personal choice and has been upheld by the Supreme Court and there have been some sensible restrictions placed on the practice I am not dead set against it.
I am against american imperialism, nation building, world polcing, internationalism, etc. I am against our military industrial complex, the system is based on one big pentagon/military contractor circle jerk popularity contest. A strong national defense is one thing. I think a reasonable sized well equipped and training standing military based solely in the U.S. is different then our current expeditionary military model i.e. a highly deployable global assault force.
That contradiction you mention goes both ways. The figures are difficult to come up with but in about 10 minutes of haphazard research factcheck.org cited planned parenthood’s 2011 fact sheet as performing around 330,000 abortions in 2009. between 1977 and 2006 there were some 54 million performed. I mean those numbers rivals loss of life in wars. Unless shooting an adult in the face with an ak47 is different than driving a needle into an unborn babies head haha.
Way off topic.
Cynthia Dill: “I support the 2nd ammendment”……”I reject the notion that…. we cannot regulate firearms” Talk about double-speak! You cant have both ways Cynthia. We all know your true agenda, and we know which way you vote on any gun issue. You would follow Pelosi and Boxer and Reid like a good little girl….Sorry, this is a majot reason why you are polling at such dismal numbers, and you will never get to Washington unless you move.
The problem with the second A is that it is ambiguous. You know that “well regulated militia” stuff. Relax, no one’s taking your guns away; the NRA, however, will gladly take your dues! This observation from a person who owns 3 pistols, 4 shotguns and several rifles.
Im perfectly relaxed, and I’m perfectly happy to give the NRA my annual dues. I do not believe that the 2nd ammendment is ambiguous, I believe its crystal clear. I beleive that those that want to regulate or outlaw firearms read into the 2nd ammendment something that isnt there. I know no one will take away firearms in my lifetime, I was just pointing out that Ms Dill speaks from both sides of her mouth.
So if it is Crystal Clear why throw your money money away to a lobby shop?
Save the Money and buy yourselve a rifle!
If the folks declaring the 2nd amendment gives absolute rights to private ownership then it follows that the constitution guarantees each of us the right to nuclear and chemical weapons as well. The wording never says guns, it says “arms” which comes from armaments. Bombs and weapons of mass destruction are armaments.
.
Once one agrees that the government may restrict individuals from ownership of weapons of mass destruction then it is opened up to allowing restricting gun ownership as well because the 2nd amendment never once mentions guns. If they can regulate armaments then they can regulate any variety of armaments including guns.
Arms!
Are weapons that can be held on the person!
Yes – and MANY weapons of mass destruction can be held on the person. Anthrax and suitcase dirty bombs to name a couple — there are many, many more. In fact most chemical weapons can be in a quantity one could carry and are capable of killing tens of thousands of people at once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
How about Article 1; Section 16 of the Constitution Of The State Of Maine which says, “To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.” Nothing ambiguous about that. I wish people wouldn’t take our state constitution so lightly. Not say you are, just in general.
great post!
Thank you. It just seems like most people automatically point to the United States Constitution without giving any thought to the state constitutions. Every state has one and they should mean something. We are supposed to be united STATES and not just fifty franchises.
Keep looking!
The Governor at his discretion in a time of emergency has the power to anull all Maine Statutes!
And when he anulls them- Gun Rights -revert back to the Federal Constitution< It's called Preemption!
So much for Gun Rights being States Rights!
What is an Arm? Hand held nuclear Rocket Launchers? It is very ambigous because the what is considered an arm. If it wasn’t ambigous there would be not fighting over what is an arm. Just like free speech, if it wasn’t ambigous we wouldn’t have court cases involving it.
From the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary:
‘ARMS, n . plu. [L. arma.]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
See, when you are looking at a document circa. 1820, you need to look at what words meant during that time. I know that this concept is very “ambiguous” to you, so I just thought I’d try to help you along a little bit. Consider it an on-line special ed class of sorts.
So, muzzle loaded guns only? The definition is still ambigous, Weapons of Office and protection of the Body. The weapons of offense could mean any weapons of offense. The defintion that you gave still makes the point that the law is ambigous.
Why pay attention to the Maine Constitution?
Charlie Summers doesn’t!It also says that the Legislature will never (In any manner) surrender the power of taxation!
He violated that one when he signed the Norquist Pledge!
what is ambiguous is how the neocon-progressive war machine justifies a standing military under our Constitution…
Bingo!
how else would we police the world and secure resources for our own?
Actually she can have it both ways…because regulation is not the same as removing the rights under the 2nd amendment.
Where is the “right” to regulate Constitutional Amendments spelled out?
Free speech is regulated. BOOM ROASTED!
WHERE is the “right” to regulate Constitutional Amendments SPELLED OUT? There are a number of laws, executive orders, regulations, and even amendments that are not Constitutional, and in violation of natural rights. Just tell me where it’s spelled out.
Umm… you mean the Judical Branch. The Branch that is there to interpret the Consititution, they are the ones that rule whether something is Consititutional or not. BOOM ROASTED!
Again, failure to answer. You’re really an intellectual light weight. Dealing with abstracts is about is deep as you can get on anything. Not going to waste my time. Have fun in your narrow little world. Peace.
Umm.. you asked me where it was written. I told you. BOOM ROASTED.
The 2d says the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. Regulation is infringement.
And you, who takes delight in referring to accomplished women as “little girls” will never get out of the confinements of your narrow mind…and that’s probably a good thing. Stay there, where society won’t have to have your viewpoints visited upon it.
If you pistol grip a Cruise missle is it now a handgun?
She is not polling well there because the tendency to not be capable of multiple thought processing is sadly too prevalent.
While King mouths the words that many Mainers want to hear, the fact that Bloomberg has “bought a share” of King scares the crap outta me. Aside from the fact that Maine is very different than NYC, we can see just how well near-total restrictions on firearms has worked for places like NYC and Chicago.
Maine politicians should be beholden to Maine citizens, not out of state interests with blatantly stated agendas which do not match the culture and wishes of our state’s population. This isn’t just true regarding firearms, but of all aspects of our state’s management and regulations.
If you think Summer’s isn’t owned by someone you are foolish.
he is now beholden to the NRA because with their endorsement comes lots of money. He is also beholden to the US Chamber of Commerce and he is beholden to Grover Norquist after signing that pledge….
Yep-busted for sure. He strikes me as a person whose middle name is “special interests,” as is our illustrious hypocrite-in-chief governor.
“… comes lots of money…?” How much $$$ will the NRA contribute to Summers? What would he have to do to pay back his “beholden” debt to the USCOC & the Norquist pledge? Use some Pledge® & clean up your posts… only trying to help you here.
Ok, who do you think owns Summers? This is pretty bold statement….
Just so we’re clear, Mr.Summers has been endorsed by the National Chamber of Commerce, is in favor of the SCOTUS’ decision of Citizens United, and now has received the endorsement of the NRA. That indicates to me that he’s good for the business climate, and, is in favor of keeping the First and Second amendments of the constitution in tact. At the risk of plagiarizing a GEICO commercial, ….It’s so simple, even a caveman can figure it out! Charlie Summers for U.S. Senate
Charlie needs all the help he can get!
Charlie summers in Maine, that’s about it.
Not an Angus fan. Not really a Summers fan. Not sure that the NRA should have endorsed anyone in the Senate contest. Normally they would stay out (criteria being same views or none-of-the-above being worthy.) I don’t mind what Angus “says” as I’m certain he is the next Senator. I only hope that he walks it like he talks it. Gun owners should worry about a guy like Bloomberg who has already shown that he wants to control private lives (big gulp soda anyone? No? Well, you don’t need that, he knows best what is good for you…) & is the driving force behind several anti-gun groups as well as spearheading his own “mayors” group. The NRA has an incredible record w/respect to their endorsements (most recently 85% in 2008, 86% in 2010.) Interestingly is that they are a true non partisan single issue voting group. They have endorsed Mike Michaud since he came in, (for that matter he’s among the top six D’s in NRA contributions.)
Former Sportsman Alliance of Maine Executive Director, George Smith, has endorsed Angus King. If George Smith is comfortable with Angus’ position on guns, that is a heck of a lot more relevant to this MAINE race than Bloomberg’s position.
sportsmanship/hunting is not what the second amendment is about.
Mr. Romney, the GOP corporatist proudly signed legislation banning assault weapons in Mass.
N.R.A. = No Real Authority
I think I would put more faith in a candidate endorsed by the NRA than one endorsed by the likes of Mayor Bloomberg.