I want to compliment the Bangor Daily News for a well-written article (July 2) regarding the impact of the new instant background check system for purchasers of long guns. I support the sunsetting of the Brady law in favor of an instant background check system, as proposed originally by the National Rifle Association.
The fee which is now being associated with this system amounts to a user fee for the Bill of Rights, similar to the old south’s poll tax (pay-to-vote). More significant is the proposal by the FBI to keep records for gun sales for 18 months; this is the de-facto formation of a national firearms owner registry, and is against the Gun Owner’s Rights Law.
Your article included comments from Van Raymond, who implied his customers would be more concerned by the impact on their wallets than anything else. He also says with the new system that his job will be easier, and “people can get instant gratification.” That’s not what this is about; it’s about the incremental loss of freedom.
Also included were comments from Mr. Basso, who feels it’s OK to regulate handguns or so-called assault rifles because they’re “scary.” When New Jersey banned “ugly” guns, a police administrator commented that his officers were more likely to be attacked by an escaped lion than face an “assault” weapon.
If the prospect of being in a national registry for owning a single-shot .22 caliber rifle or having to pay to exercise your constitutionally guaranteed rights worries you, I urge you to contact your representatives in Washington and ask them to stick to the original agreement to sunset the Brady Act. Then join the NRA. Andrew Rudzinski East Corinth