 Good evening. Good evening. I'm Harold Pacious. We're on the air again with another edition of Pacious on the News. As you know, we try to make these as topical as possible, and obviously, in the last week and a half, there's been a lot of discussion about guns, about what we do about the problem, and you know, there's a great division in our country about this, and it's a very difficult political issue. It's very difficult for many people, including sportsmen, who say, well, why do they want to take my weapon away from me? And one of the issues is, do they really want to do that, or as some of the opponents to gun control say, it's a slippery slope? Once you start, who knows where it will end? We're very fortunate tonight to have as our guest David Tran, who is the executive director of the Maine Sportsmen's Alliance. I'm going to let David talk a little bit beginning and tell you about his organization. Most of you have heard of it, particularly if you're a hunter and a fisherman. You know about Sam, the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, and I think that those of you who are not familiar with it, you know about local rod and gun clubs. You know about fishing clubs and so forth. So sportsmen belong to a lot of organizations. This is one of them. This is the big umbrella organization for sportsmen in the state of Maine. And we've got David here to tell you about it, answer some of my questions. Welcome, David. David, happy you're here. I ought to say, David, at the beginning, we have a little bit of an unusual arrangement here tonight because David is not with us. He's on Zoom. You know, we had these programs on Zoom for about a year and a half, and we're very happy to get back. Well, today, David called and said that he had been exposed to somebody in a car last night whose spouse tested positive this morning, and that person doesn't feel so well today. And David doesn't feel great today. So we told him, stay up where you are. Where are you in your office? Yeah. I'm actually at home. I have an office here when I was a legislator. I used to do most of my testimony and work here in my office. So I'm down in Waldenboro, Maine, in my office. And yeah, I appreciate you accommodating the Zoom. I was really just too close to the COVID virus to be comfortable coming down. So thank you for accommodating me. Well, we welcome you on the show, David, and we welcome you here. But here I am in the studio, and I'm glad you're not sitting within six feet of me. So David, just to put this in context, why don't you describe for our audience what the organization is, what SAM is, what its mission is, who its members are, a little bit about it? Sure. So the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine was created in 1976. It was in response to growing concerns around hunting and firearm ownership. Originally, our mission was to defend firearm rights and hunting. Since then, though, our organization, because of its reach, its membership, its political influence, has broadly expanded its mission to include all sorts of issues, including land conservation. Over the years, we were instrumental in creating the Land for Mains Future program, a very popular conservation program. We also worked to create the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund that has supplied tens of millions of dollars for conservation. What's unique about our organization, first of all, we have, and we are viewed as a very strong political and influential organization, we have 70 fishing game clubs we partner with. We reach about 30,000 people, so that's a pretty good group of folks that can be influential. We actually have two, really three divisions of SAM. We have a separate non-profit C4 that does our political activity. That's our Institute for Legislative Action. I run that organization. I also run the non-profit C3 side of it. We have, in addition to that, we have an education center in Augusta, 112 acres, with an archery, air gun, 22 range, two kids fishing ponds, miles of trails, and we host youth events throughout the summer and fall. So I run all three organizations. We have now, I think, seven employees, mostly part-time, two full-time, but we're very, very busy. But I think what's unique about our organization is, when complicated problems come up, like firearm issues, land conservation, not only are we asked to use our influence, but we also write policy. We can offer up ideas to solve problems. And then having been a legislator for 12 years myself, former state senator and chair of taxation committee, I'm familiar with writing law. We do that on a regular basis. We work with committees to write law and solve problems. And that's why I'm kind of excited to be on your show. I think we've had some successes on the firearms issue side. And I think we, because we don't engage in what I call the politics of screaming at each other, that we can be helpful if we listen, offer ideas, and try to bring a reasonable approach to issues. And that's our role at SAM, and that's the role we want to fill. OK. You know, you're familiar with the debate, obviously. This is your business. And you're very familiar with the debate. And we've now had another incident in a school, and there's been a succession of terrible tragedies where many schoolchildren have been killed. Any ideas from your point of view of what can be done or whether anything can be done? Sure. Well, first of all, I think all of us need to recognize the political atmosphere that exists. Right now, both parties are completely divided. Right now, there's 48 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, two independents, and 50 Republicans. The two independents caucus with the Democrats. So it makes it a 50-50 split. So it's incredibly difficult. If you lose even one vote as a caucus, then you're not going to achieve the votes that you need to make change. So recognizing that current environment, you need to work within it. And you need to find ways to make progress. Because I'll explain to folks that are listening, you know, really what it's like in this process. Imagine on these controversial issues, there's an abyss with a narrow bridge that goes across the abyss. The more extreme measures you add to that little narrow bridge, the more unlikely it is to cross it. And that's sort of the place we are right now in our politics. We need to find ways to avoid the screaming and work with the people in the middle who can make progress on issues. We've done that since my tenure at SAM started almost 12 years ago. Some of the successes after one of the other tragic school shootings, which we all look at and just are horrified, whether you're a gun owner or a second amendment supporter or somebody who is considered themselves pro-second amendment, I mean pro-gun control, we all are horrified. And I think if we can put that energy to good use instead of screaming at each other, we have options to have some successes. Now, after one of the school shootings, Newtown, Parkland, I decided, and I'm going to explain to you why I really just decided to disregard the politics and the controversy and try to do something. I'll get to those things in a moment. I was in Rockport with my wife at a restaurant, and when I was coming out of the restaurant, a mother with her daughter was waiting for me at the door and said, I belong to the Gun Safety Coalition. I know who you are and I know you're an influence maker. I want to tell you my story, my tragic loss of a family member who died from a firearm suicide. And I hope that you, when you hear my story, will use your influence for good. And I said, ma'am, I've always tried to use my influence for good, but based on your story, I will make, I'll give you my word that I will break from the pack and try to do something, make some progress. So this was about four years ago. I actually, it was quite a while ago. I started it as a state senator. The first thing I did was I wanted to work to harden our schools security, not just for shooters, but for all the issues that affect young people from drug addiction, peer pressures, bullying. So I introduced legislation to create the main school safety center. The first year we had difficulties with it. I retired from the Senate, moved in as Sam director, asked representative Patrick Corey to work with me to implement that main school safety center, and we accomplished that goal. That school safety center is housed in the Department of Education and it is their job to examine security at all main schools and then make recommendations and connect people to funding to improve the security at their schools. Now, as we've learned most recently with a teacher opening a back door to the school, the best security in the world still depends on humans to implement those security measures. I heard recently that the teacher said that she closed the door, but it didn't lock. Bottom line is she never should have opened the back door to begin with because then it created an opening for the shooter. We must learn from that experience as as horrifying as it is for that teacher. Can't imagine living with that, but the main school safety center is designed to learn from that experience. Where I learned about this level of accountability and sharing of information just so you listeners know, when I was a legislator, I spent seven years creating our government oversight agency, OPEGA, that reviews state agencies. In addition, I spearheaded the effort to create Maine's mandatory medical errors reporting system. Both of those systems are designed to learn our flaws, learn from them and try to improve. So that means school safety centers in place. They have a big meeting coming up in a few weeks where they're going to be meeting to share information across the state with our school systems. The second thing that happened that I think was very, very important was when red flag legislation was brought to the legislature, the governor called me personally and said, you guys have a chance here to help us. We want to work on something. Let me just interrupt you. So our folks that are watching know what was the red flag proposal and who was the governor that called you? It was Governor Janet Mills who called me. I served with her in Maine legislature. We have a great relationship and so I believe it's a trusted relationship. So the red flag legislation was brought, I believe, three years ago by a Falmouth senator. And what it does basically is allows a family member relative to go to the police and say, I believe this individual is a danger to themselves and others. This is an ex post factor, which means without that person's knowledge that individual through a policeman can then go to the court and petition to have their firearms taken away. Well, that's been very controversial because it lacks new process for the individual who's being accused. You think about it, no crime has been committed. It's just an individual's opinion. The governor, who was an ex attorney general, Senator Carpenter, who was an ex attorney general, Derek Langhouser, one of the best legal minds in the state. We met and said, can we figure out a better process that that would institute some levels of due process and also connect individuals to services that they need. We met for a month or more. And the best legal lines in the state working with the judiciary committee reformed the mains, mains protective custody statute. The press called it the yellow flag law. The way that law works is when an individual, somebody calls the police department and says, an individual, John Smith is acting irrational. They believe there are a threat to themselves or others. The police will come evaluate the situation and under law, which has been in effect for almost 50 years. Police have been able upon upon probable cause that a person is a danger to themselves or others and suffering mental illness, possibly to put them into protective custody. In the past what was happening was that person would be held for 18 hours. In a few cases might get access to care, but would then be released. They were still a dangerous danger to themselves and others. One that person now under the yellow flag is in protective custody. The law directs the officer to take them to a medical practitioner who has an expertise in mental health services. They evaluate that individual. And then if they concur, then that person, they can go to a judge and that person can have their firearms removed for up to 14 days. At that point, the judge with clear and convincing evidence can put in an order, a longer order to take the firearms away. That process has also a telemedicine component. The the law called for the development of telemedicine services for that evaluation. That's critical because being another rural states don't have access to the kinds of services that they need to to treat mental illness and the problems that are associated with it. So that was very controversial at past with bipartisan support. It is now being discussed at the federal level. I know because I've been having conversations with Senator Collins. Congressman Golden, who are both looking to be players that move legislation forward that can pass the Congress. So there's also one more additional program we created just past the legislature. It's called the safe homes program. But under that program. Next year we're going to have safe storage month September, in which there's an education program about safely storing firearms and other dangerous weapons including prescription drugs. In addition to that there's a second component that when an individual who in most cases is in the system or being treated by non profits at risk individuals. There's a grant program created to assist the families in securing dangerous weapons firearms and prescription drugs in the home. That can be in a daycare setting hospital setting any setting in which there's a vulnerability. The state will work with them to to better secure their homes. So though all three of those programs are being considered right now in Congress. Okay, so those are the that's what you or your group would propose we do to to try to rain in this problem which is a some people think a national problem you may not but the people do think it's a national problem. No problem and I don't disagree with you. We've got to do something in this country and I think we need to look beyond. Beyond, I know the gun issues always going to be forefront. It's always going to be controversial always going to talk about it. But we also have to address. I think as a society the fundamental issues that we face as a society. I want to say something and it's going to be a little controversial but I've been thinking a lot about it. As a society what we view as entertainment. It's starting to disturb me. I've watched some Hollywood movies recently that are incredibly graphic. It's killing from the beginning to the end. They're using weapons that most people don't even possess now. It's almost glorifying it. We're watching things like. Why do you think I may interrupt you a little bit because we'd have to. I'm trying to have a little discussion with you on this some of some of these things. I appreciate your views and I'm interested in them but we want to have a little bit of a discussion. So so why do you think the movies are like that. Why do you think there's so much violence in movies. Well what sells is what's on your TV. So so they like it. They like it. It's it's it's the market wants it. Correct. People like violence is what you just said. That's very very scary. I said the market likes it. The people who are what people don't go to a movie with all of these killing and all of this gunfire unless they wanted to. You don't have to go. It is healing to certain people. You would agree with that that it is does appeal to certain people. I agree that it appeals to certain people but it's not just the movies that we're watching. It's the I mean the technology has made everything so incredibly graphic in detail and it's playing to people's I don't know inner depths of an emotion. You look at the mixed martial arts for instance flipping through the channels you watch people beat each other to a pulp until some is unconscious and we call that. We call that entertainment. Yeah absolutely. They call it entertainment. The world wrestling thing all of that stuff people love it even the fake stuff as long as it's bloody or they think somebody's being bloody even if they're not they like it. So it's appealing. So it's a it's a problem in society. It's a problem with human beings. You know there's certain aspects of human nature that are problematic. It always has been the case. And so I think that's the problem with also some people think that's the problem with mass killings that you're always going to have them unless you can somehow reduce them by making it more difficult for people to engage in that. Now one of the things I want to talk about is gun control. That is in for instance in Australia and Canada and places where they've had mass killings not many. They've taken various steps which steps which I understand that you folks would be opposed to National Rifle Association would be opposed to but they've taken these steps. And to control guns and one major step taken in most countries in the western world is registration and we have registration in this country but we have some loopholes. So there's this idea that they want to close up loopholes like for gun shows and things of that sort. Would you folks listen to that argument if people wanted to propose that kind of a solution. This is an example of what I started with in the beginning and that is you need to recognize the atmosphere and the political atmosphere that you're dealing with. There are not enough votes and I believe you're going to see that coming right up in the house. The Nancy Pelosi the speaker is going to put a bunch of gun control measures up for a vote in the house. They are admittedly and even the leadership in the house will say there's symbolic votes. They're going to be gun control votes and it's going to be so in the next election they can be used against those that voted. Well you're talking about politics. I don't want to talk about politics. I want to know whether there's anything that can be done. And one of the issues specifically I want to know is closing up the registration loopholes. OK. So and so anyway and I'm not to agree with people who want that. You may disagree with it. But I'm just trying to get answers for people who are watching the program. Sure. My organization actually has a federal firearm license. We attend gun shows. We raffle firearms. We run. I'm sure you do. The question is getting to your answer. If you could be patient with me. I'm getting to your answer. Back about seven or eight years ago when Senator Stan Grisoski was on the Criminal Justice Committee we did a comprehensive look at gun shows in Maine. All of the people that were conducting gun shows including my organization does background checks on all firearms that either raffle or whatever gun shows all of them require background checks. What you're talking about goes on in the parking lot and it's unknown to the people running the gun the gun so-called gun show. What happened is there'll be an advertisement or if the gun show is going on people show up in the parking lot and say hey Joe I've got a gun I'd like to sell it. The bottom line because we got a lot to cover here and we've only we've used up almost half our time. So what you're saying is it's not workable premises including the parking lots that firearm background check be conducted. You can do that. That's a policy decision of the Congress. And given the split that's going on in the Congress what I'm telling you is that may not be the best time for that policy. Yes you can address it. When you say I want people to understand what you're saying is it may not be the best time for that policy because it'll be opposed by enough people that are prohibited from being enacted. We want to inform the people here so why won't they enact it. I mean the Republicans seem to be uniformly against any of these proposals to regulate gun ownership. What you say is it's slippery slow. And they may be right. They may be right. The reason that I think there's resistance is that it's already against federal law to felony to sell a firearm to a prohibited individual. And that's included in the parking lot. So it's already a federal crime. I know ATF attends those gun shows because I see them and I know that I know that they have a presence and they're policing it. So if you if you're talking about solutions to this this gun this event that happened in the school many people tell you we don't think that that's going to solve the problem. So that's probably why it's not going to get the focus. OK. What will solve the problem. Now you've talked about the program that you lobbied to get enacted in Maine to support school safety more security in the schools things that but there are that that has nothing to do with the weapons. It has to do with putting more police in the in the schools. And there's some people I know have said well we need to arm the teachers. We need teachers in there with weapons. Do you agree with that. No I do not. Teachers they learn they go to college to teach children not to handle firearms. They are not the best individuals to handle firearms. Now do I think that you can improve security. I suggested on the radio just yesterday that why doesn't why doesn't the school district have an office to any local county state police local police an office in their school. You can do administrative work. You can do benign things. You can have a low key presence. I know having been endorsed by the Maine Education Association repeatedly. I've talked with folks over there. They know our stance at Sam. We don't support Army teachers. But once a person a shooter is in the building. I don't. The only defense is how many bullets that individual has. So you've got to have the turn. Once they get past the gate. Once they pass the gate then it's just a matter of how much damage they do. You can't let them in the door. And if you do you better be prepared once they're in the building. You think that you know when I was growing up and I'm fairly old when I was growing up. My parents weren't afraid that there were no police in the school and my parents weren't afraid that if I went to school I might become home dead shot. What's caused this. Well I remember when when all the terrorism activity was happening on our on our jetliners people were dying and crashes. As a nation we came together and we came up with laws. We created marshals for those aircraft and and great security and it reduced those terrorism incidences to nearly zero. We have to get serious about the most vulnerable who are in our schools not just the children the teachers the support staff. Okay so school security is what you're talking about. Problem once that's addressed. This individual was known to the police that did the shooting. He had threatened women with violence. He had told people what he was going to do. We need to examine the entire situation not just that this individual. I'm not afraid of research research every one of the individuals participated in these events and learn from those experiences and then make changes in policy. The firearm the firearm stuff to be honest with you in this environment the more extreme it is the less likely it has a chance to pass. But don't just I understand. We I think everybody understands that's watching this show that the Republicans in Congress will pretty much uniformly all of them oppose not all of them. Maybe one or two won't oppose it but oppose most gun control measures so they understand that. And so I think we're talking about not about the politics. We understand the politics but what else can be done. Let me let me throw one thing out David in Israel which is one of the countries that tries its best to control this because think of it. They're in a part of the world and where there's a lot of violence and where their country is subject to violence from terrorism and so forth. So if you're an Israeli citizen and you want to own a weapon keep a weapon you can. They say yes you can have a weapon but to buy a gun in Israel you need a government license. You need to be licensed to have the gun and the requirements for the licensing include satisfying a minimum age limit age 27 for anyone who hasn't served in the military or national service. Passing a gun safety test and obtaining a letter from a doctor that you are sound mind and body. What would be wrong with that it wouldn't affect the people that are your members they can go target shoot. They'll get a license they're not going to hurt anybody why would they worry about that. Well there is that darn thing we call the second amendment and people are concerned and rightly so that once government has the name and information of everybody that owns firearms that someday they'll get confiscated. Now do I agree with that. I mean the second amendment just says you have the right to bear arms and this is in Israel you have the right to bear arms but there are certain requirements that you have to meet. Can you look it up because I think you're required to have a firearm. I think they require. You know you can't you can't have a firearm in Israel which really needs a militia. You can't have a firearm in Israel unless you take the test and unless you get the doctor certificate. Can't have a firearm. I don't think you you can you can say all you want that makes sense to you but in this country it doesn't make sense because of the concerns that people have around the national registry and what it looks like to confiscate firearms. For instance I'm going to I'm going to throw it right back at you. Right now there's this big push to ban so called assault weapons. Well anyone that knows much about firearms knows that so called assault weapon is a semi automatic firearm of which I own some that we use for hunting. They look like hunting rifles. The mechanism in a second. This is this is an assault weapon right. It's a AR 15 is what it is. And that's an assault weapon. A switch on it to make it fully automatic. Well I don't have the thing here but I'll look at it. Have you ever seen it. Have you ever seen a weapon like that. If it's a semi automatic firearm that's exactly the same firearm which is a very provocative photo but it's the same firearm that that have the same mechanism that a semi automatic hunting rifle has. It looks just looks different. The mechanism is the same. How much in the magazine one of these semi automatics. Well under the law you can have a high capacity magazine. Again that's the policy of Congress to establish what that number is going to be. I'm not. All right. I'm not arguing with you but I want to get information. And so OK that's the law. You can have it unlimited or whatever. Let's say 90 cartridges. OK in the magazine. So why not put a limit on it. Why not say you can only have five or six. So that if you had one of those things and you wanted to kill a bunch of children you couldn't kill 30 of them or 20 of them. Again that is the policy discussion that Congress is having. What I'm getting at is you try to to imply that that was a weapon of war. A semi automatic firearm does nothing on the on the war field because the weapons they have are fully automatic semi automatic. I'm not talking about the war. I'm not talking about war weapons. I'm talking about a semi automatic where you have to pull the trigger in order to fire a shot. All right. But but with a semi automatic watch my finger. I can move that finger 50 or 60 times in less than a minute. So you can shoot 50 or 60 bullets in less than a minute with a semi automatic. The question I have. Go ahead. The question is I'm not debating with you. I'm trying to get information. So I'm asking a tough question like what's wrong with limiting the amount of bullets that can be in the cartridge. Whatever you're calling. That's me the question. The I think the floor in in this whole thing is that you're assuming if that if we restricted magazines to say five rounds that somehow that was going to change what happened in that school. There are there are make 30 million high capacity magazines in this country. If you do that you're going to have to confiscate those high capacity magazines. That again is Congress is bailiwick. I'm not I'm not here to argue gun control with you. You you asked me to come on and talk about what kind of progress we can make in Congress in 2022. I told you what that is. I'm not going to come out there and say we're in favor or opposed to these various controversial gun control proposals because that's not the role of the sportsman's alliance to me. Our role is to make progress. It is the common sense at the table and work on things we can get done not keep screaming at each other. I think you know I've been doing this for 16 years so I ask questions and not every question is a comfortable question. But this is unfortunately the way I do it. And I don't want you to take it personally. I ask questions. That's how I get information. And it's not always the information. I'm not talking about you but I've had people on that the questions I ask the answers are not the information that people they want to talk about things that they they want to talk about. So I'm not trying to be a tough guy here. I'm just asking questions. Now this is that that answer is important for I think our audience to understand is that on these specific proposals that may be made in Congress. For instance, making an unlawful to be able to have a rifle with a magazine that has more than 10 bullets in it or something. You don't have an opinion one way or the other. You just say it's going to be tough in Congress because there's going to be a lot of people opposed to that. And I think people do understand that there will be a lot of people opposed. I guess my my organization has been opposed to limiting magazine capacity. In the past. I don't know what we're going to do this time around. But all I know is that I'm talking to people at the highest levels of government all the way up to the most powerful US senators about proposals that can make progress. We failed in this country to react after these shootings. There's a stalemate. I'm interested in making progress. And if I start making broad statements like the ones you want me to make, then I don't become a moderator, a common sense voice in this debate. I become just part of the right or the left. And I don't want to do that. We're going to position ourselves to save lives. And we're going to look at every element of these shootings to do that. We're just not going to get drawn into that broader and more controversial debate. At some point, you know, I mean, I've been in politics now, too. We have a problem and people say, well, we'd like to look to the government to solve some societal problems because because we are divided. It takes the government sometimes to say, look, this is the way things are going to be. And so you may have to take a stand on some of these specific proposals. We understand the National Rifle Association. Do you do you get do you get there? I know they get money from the gun manufacturers. Does Sam get any income of money from gun manufacturers? Well, of course we do. We have an education program in which we have certified instructors that train the National Rifle Association as one of the finest youth education firearm education programs called the Eddie Eagle program in the country. They have given us funding for our instructors for our shooting range, safety components. People want to try to link us because we might have got a grant from the friends of the NRA, somehow to gun manufacturers. They can do that all day long. But where are the folks that are spending tremendous amounts of money to educate the next generation shooters? You can't do that without money because the gun control community will never give us money for that purpose. So it's an investment, really, in the future. And I'm not going to be ashamed to say that we take money for that purpose. Well, I would say that I don't want to ask a question that's unfair. I understand there are going to be proposals or people want there to be proposals to ban assault weapons. You have a lot of members that you don't call them assault weapons, the other side does call them assault weapons, but semi-automatic weapons, or to strictly regulate them. When people go to a range or go hunting, I'm serious, I don't understand. I think people would like to understand. Why are these high volume magazines important? I mean, why do they like that? Well, they are simply to use at a shooting range. Again, a person's choice on a high capacity magazine. I think you can look to the federal courts for that answer. There have been several challenges recently in places like California and others to limiting magazine capacity. And the courts have said, if the bad guy can have it, the good guy should have it too. That's generally what they stare at. It's a second amendment problem too, you're saying. Every one of these laws you're talking about are likely to get challenged in the federal court, because we have hundreds if not thousands of gun regulations. And I think we've done pretty much everything we can to bump up against the second amendment. And now you're going to start stepping on his toes, and that's where you're going to see the challenges. Okay. I find that interesting. Everybody's talking about the most recent gun cases, DC, Heller versus DC, which was the District of Columbia ordinance which prohibited people from having guns in their homes. And that was struck down by the court. Scalia wrote the opinion, and that's the law of the land now, and it's the most recent gun case. But what's interesting, and I want to say there's not so much for your benefit, but for the people watching the show, because some people do watch the show and this is information. In that decision, and everybody's talking about Heller and they say it says this or it says that, but here's the decision. Very thick, a lot of pages, hundreds of pages. But the court, Scalia writing for the majority, five to four majority, we have to remember with Supreme Court cases, particularly now, there's usually one or two votes difference and opposite and opposing views. But Scalia wrote for the majority, like most rights, the rights secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explain that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose. And they go on and they say, although we do not undertake exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions in the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or to prohibit the laws, laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, like an AR-15. So we're not saying what the court will do, who knows, but this is what the court, the majority said. So they've said one other thing. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller, which was an original, a prior Supreme Court case on guns, Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time the Constitution was written, in common use at the time. We think that limitation, says Scalia and the majority, that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. So if a weapon, I'm a lawyer, so I would argue, others would argue against this. If a weapon can kill in a minute 25, 30 people, it might be argued, will be argued, that it is a dangerous weapon and as such is not prohibited, is not permitted by the Second Amendment. So there's a complicated business, there's no question about it. There's nothing simple about it, but I'm just trying to get information and I understand that people do it. I'm not passing judgment on it. There are people that like to fire these. I have friends who like to fire these weapons. But hunting, the one thing I would say, people say to me, I don't understand the hunting thing, and I don't either, and let me say I'm not a hunter. So you got a babe in the woods here, doesn't really understand things. But these semi-automatic weapons have fire bullets with great velocity, and I watched a 60-minute program last Sunday in which they showed that the high-velocity bullets tear apart somebody's insides, that they, much more than a .22 rifle or something like that. What does it do to the animals that they hunt? I don't know, you may not know the answer to that, but it pretty much destroys them too, their insides. So I'm not sure what you're getting at for a question. I mean, if I... The question is why do you need a semi-automatic rifle to go hunting? People ask that question. I'm sure there's a good answer. I'm not attacking anybody. People look for the answer. Now we've got to the, I guess, to the nut. You just said, why does anyone need a semi-automatic firearm? It's an example I started with. When people call for an assault weapons ban, they're calling for a ban on semi-automatic firearms. Let's just call it that. Yeah, okay. Good. That's what, let's call it that, okay. So first of all, I fully support Scalia's decision. I understand what's in it. I read it. Governments can regulate firearms. That policy area always falls back to Congress. And again, if you want to further regulate, that has to go through the Congress, except there is a push to try to get the ATF to do some of this work with executive orders and other things. But the bottom line is, working through our Congress, through our representative democracy, we make these decisions. And that Scalia decision reinforced that. You take it to the Congress, you have the debate. Right now, you're not going to get those kinds of bans on semi-automatic firearms through Congress. It's, you know, it's an emotional debate. It's going to drum up a lot of money and voters in the next election, one side or the other. But ultimately, do we make progress on this issue? I am dedicated as I was. My wife is sitting with me now. She was there when this lady and her daughter pleaded with me to use my influence. And I promised her I would. And I'm going to do that. I'm not going to become part of the screamers. I want to be part of the solution. So with that, getting back to your semi-automatic firearms. You know, your description of how a bullet works, that's what they're designed to do. In a hunting setting, the most important thing as a hunter for me is ethics. When I pull the trigger to harvest the deer, I want it to be a humane kill. You shoot it with a .22 or a small caliber firearm, you wound it. The likelihood of killing it in a short, quick kill is very slim. That animal is going to suffer maybe for days. Those firearms for hunting purposes, including semi-automatics, are designed for a quick humane kill. It's up to every hunter to use ethical shot placement to do that cleanly. What you're doing is you're talking about how that works with humans and the graphic nature of what that looks like. That is horrific for all of us. None of us want that to happen. I was asking about the answer. The answer is a good answer. I can understand that it's a humane way to shoot an animal. Also, in hunting, I've gone back to my other question because it just seems logical to me, but it could be illogical. I admit that. The magazine capacity, high capacity magazine, is that useful in hunting? In a hunting setting, I know because I served on the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee for 12 years. I've lobbied in front of it for another 11 and two years prior to that, I served on the advisory council. Rounds are limited for several reasons. First being for humane and ethical reasons, meaning it's a fair chase issue. You don't get to shoot 30 times at a deer running through the woods. It's just in society, the legislature wouldn't accept that. You're limited on the rounds that you can use. For safety purposes, you can't be spraying the woods with 20 or 30 rounds, so the legislature said, no, we're going to limit it. There is a limit on it, but it's not because of what you're alluding to that it's in a person-to-person confrontation. In hunting, it's different. It's for the safety of those that don't hunt. It's for the ethical hunt and all those types of things. The state law that regulates how many shots the hunter can take or something like that? Yes, there are so many in your fire. For instance, when you're duck hunting, the federal law is that you can have three rounds in your shotgun. You also have to use non-led ammo when you're hunting waterfowl. There are regulations on semi-automatic firearm for duck hunting. Good duck hunter. I'm kind of terrible. My wife will tell you that, but it is limited for that purpose. I never knew that, so in other words, if I was a hunter and I had an AR-15, there is a state law that regulates how I use that AR-15 when I'm in the woods hunting. You use an AR-15 duck hunting? You can only have some- Not duck hunting. I'm talking about non-duck hunting, not ducks. Sure. How about deer or moose? Yeah. I believe the rounds are five, and you're limited. An AR-15, in my opinion, you know, it's up to the hunter to make those choices based on their skillset is not my caliber of choice. Wait, wait, wait. Yeah, but I understand it's not your- My question is, is there- I asked why you need, you know, so many bullets if you're out hunting, and then you said, well, you can't. You got to be careful. You know, spray the woods. It's a safety issue and so forth. And then I may have misunderstood, there are no state regulations as to how many bullets you can have in your magazine when you're out hunting. Is that correct? State law. You can only have so many and you're gone. Okay. All right, yeah. I wasn't clear on that. So, look, I sense that you thought I was on the attack here, and all I'm doing is trying to ask questions that I know these people want to ask. And you're trying, and I understand this. I said, I've been doing this a long time. You're trying to- you have a job to do, and you're trying to tell us how you want to do your job. And I think that's excellent. I have no problem with that. I'm just trying to- I don't understand hunting. That's why I asked you about what the hunters do. I don't- I'm not a gun guy. I don't have a gun, so I'm at a real disadvantage because I know people. I have good friends who love guns. I have guys that go- I know a guy who went traveling with him. He bought two pistols for thousands of dollars because he loves guns. I think he's a good guy. Okay, so I'm not passing judgment on that. I'm just trying to get answers because there is a debate, as you say, in this country. We're all aware of the debate. There are unreasonable people on both sides of the debate. There are people who say things that are inaccurate on both sides of the debate, and our job here is just to get information to people. So I'm- I just want to explain to you, I'm not after you. I do want to bring up something that I think it's an important discussion topic. In this country, because of the violence levels that occur in inner city, it gets a lot of attention in the media. There's a lot of violence. The rates of crime are going up significantly in heavily populated urban areas. We see that in Maine because people are moving here because we are the safest state in the nation to live as it relates to violent crime. There is a stark divide between urban and rural U.S. citizens. And in the rural setting, you know, I grew up in a rural area. I view guns much differently than, say, somebody who grew up in the urban areas where hunting is and recreational shooting just don't exist. Guns are seen more as a tool of crime, I think, in some of the more heavily populated urban areas. In the rural areas, guns are passed on. They're failing heirlooms. They're passed on from generation to generation. They're not seen as, you know, a scary tool that's going to be used in a crime. And so there's two different cultures that have evolved, two different views of firearms. And I think that a lot of times you're seeing that clash going on where the people in the inner cities are saying more gun control, because they want to reduce crime and unnecessary death in their cities. The people in the rural areas are saying, oh, God, crime and violence is very seldom and it's a big part of our culture in rural areas. We don't understand what they're driving. So that's the clash that's going on, I think, is this stark divide between rural and urban areas? You're absolutely right. I think there's no question about it. And somewhere, hopefully, there's a happy medium, everybody, in order to make this work, everybody has to give a little. You're not going to solve this problem with everybody getting their way. Everybody has to be a little unhappy when it's all over. And you know, when the national debate is over with, I think you'll see that I am proud of the work that our organization did with the Mills administration, with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate. We worked with both parties to pass legislation when other states couldn't. I'm proud of that. I saw that model being effective and I knew that someday a little old man would be in front of Congress with some of the things we've done. And that's exactly what has happened. David, I'm getting a signal from the producer here, this signal, which means we got to wrap it up. Listen, I really appreciate you giving us this interview and this information. It's been helpful to me. I've learned some things in asking these questions of you. And I know a little bit more than I did before, which is a good thing, because I didn't know much. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your coming on the program. All right, thank you.