Bruce Poliquin Steps In A Hornet’s Nest On Guns

By Matthew Gagnon
January 29, 2010

Tweet

At the most recent candidate forum, hosted by the Associated General Contractors, candidates of both parties had an opportunity to try out their debate chops, and go on record on a number of issues.

(Editors note: this is an updated paragraph to clarify the description of the questioning section) One of the more interested parts of the forum was what was known as the “lightning round”. The rules for these questions were that you may only answer “yes” or “no”. Everyone had to answer every question. All of the questions were prepared by the moderators – no candidates got to ask any questions.

One such question has stirred up some trouble for one candidate – Republican Bruce Poliquin – “Do you support mandatory background checks on the purchase of a firearm?” The answers from the field were as follows:

Democrats

Pat McGowan – No
Rosa Scarcelli- Yes
John Richardson – No
Libby Mitchell – No
Steve Rowe – No

Republicans

Paul LePage- No
Bill Beardsley- No
Steve Abbott – No
Matt Jacobson- No
Bruce Poliquin – Yes
Les Otten - No
Peter Mills- No

Independents

Eliot Cutler – Yes

Only Cutler, one Democrat – Rosa Scarcelli – and one Republican – Bruce Poliquin – answered that they would in fact be in favor of mandatory background checks for the purchase of firearms.

Guns are an interesting political wedge in the state of Maine. It is one of the backbone issues that has given credibility to Democrats in the second district (indeed, this was McGowan’s question), by separating their image from the more traditional limousine liberal appearance of Democrats in the first district.

So it comes as no surprise that the Democrats were just as opposed to mandatory background checks as the Republicans, who have universally hated the idea from day one, decrying it as a restriction on the second amendment.

Still, a Democrat or Independent is given a lot of leeway to answer yes to a question like this, because their electoral base is far more forgiving of somebody stepping out on that particular limb. I do not believe, for example, that either Scarcelli or Cutler will really be hurt by their answer to this question – either in the primary (for Scarcelli) or the general.

But in the case of Poliquin, this does in fact cause him significant trouble, particularly in the Republican primary.

Gun rights are a sacred cow to Republicans nationally, but in the state of Maine the issue is even more hyperbolic – again, due to the nature of the state. For many primary voters, being perceived as “anti-gun” is a litmus test issue that will immediately disqualify somebody. Poliquin, as the only Republican answering yes to this question, has exposed himself to that criticism.

If there was any doubt, note the reaction from the activists in the As Maine Goes forum. While not exactly representative of the entire electorate, it should at least give you an idea of how important this issue is to a lot of Maine Republican voters:

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

I will not vote for him based on this.

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

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.

Game over man.

Stick a fork in him he is done.

It goes on and on and on [and on] from there. The reaction was immediate, and very negative. It should be noted there were a couple defensive comments made, but they were very weak, and immediately attacked.

Now, I tend not to cite As Maine Goes as a barometer of conservative grass roots opinion, because 9 times out of 10 it really isn’t – but in this case, I think it does show the general reaction of most Maine Republicans on this issue.

Poliquin’s answer to this question is not a surprise, however.

In December of 1989, Poliquin donated $500 to an organization known as “Handgun Control, Inc.”, which has since (June of 2001) morphed into the organization now known as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In its most simple terms, it and its predecessor organization advocate further gun regulation. So, given Poliquin’s previous support for this organization, it really doesn’t come as any surprise that he would answer yes to this question.

The organization’s mission is stated:

“…to reform the gun industry by enacting and enforcing sensible regulations to reduce gun violence, including regulations governing the gun industry. In addition, we educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities.”

Additionally, the Brady Campaign’s website states the following:

“As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns.”

Though the growth of the organization over the years has undoubtedly lead to a modification of goals and strategies, it should be noted that in 1976, Pete Shields, the founder of what was then Handgun Control, Inc. stated the overall strategy for his organization, and the gun control movement in general:

We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

I imagine the rancor caused by Poliquin’s statement at this candidate forum will not be helped by his donation to this organization twenty years ago, especially given the strategy outlined above.

Still, it was twenty years ago, and I myself spent some rather considerable time blasting “guilt by association”. I, for one, do not believe that Bruce Poliquin really has any active interest in banning all handguns simply because he donated to an organization that apparently did.

That, of course, does not change the fact that many voters will still find the donation objectionable.

Poliquin’s campaign gave me a statement on the issue in response to this most recent storm of criticism. The following statement is from Bruce Poliquin:

“I think our campaign just takes it in stride, knowing that everyday we’re out growing the grassroots, communicating our message, and doing the things it takes to win the support of voters. Some campaigns look at our early success and see that we are going to be very competitive. It’s natural to target someone who’s out in front. They’ll take words out of context, push conspiracy theories, and try to mislead others about your positions. I think we’re prepared for that and we’re going to continue to run our race. This campaign will be about who has the experience and background to best manage the problems Maine’s economy faces. I have been dealing with these financial issues my entire professional life. It has caused us to receive a lot of early attention – both good and bad, apparently.”

So, is this a big deal?

I leave that to the reader, and the voter.

It should be noted that this is hardly the only conservative plank that sees a candidate standing out of step with the primary voters. There are pro-choice Republicans running, a pro-tax form Republican, some have expressed support for (or voted for) gay marriage, and there are a host of other issues that see divergence.

Still, this is the topic we are talking about right now, and I think it is an issue which could be damning to the Poliquin campaign, especially in the second district, where (especially among Republican primary voters) guns are sacred, and restrictions upon them are fought tooth and nail.

Here is the raw video of the question and answers, for any who may want to watch:

Share This Article:

Tags: 2010 Gubernatorial Race, 2010 Republican Gubernatorial Primary, Bruce Poliquin, Eliot Cutler, Pat McGowan, Rosa Scarcelli

76 Responses to “Bruce Poliquin Steps In A Hornet’s Nest On Guns”

John J Bouchard

31. Jan, 2010

Ben- If you know anything about real estate you would know
that we are in a recession and home sales are down. This project
will be finished and will sell out in a matter of time, as the economy turns around. Every project has people against it. So Ben who are you supporting?
Peter F

31. Jan, 2010

Poliquin is getting hit by wingbats that are afraid that his money will shut out Abbott from even having a chance. That’s all this is.
Reid

31. Jan, 2010

Well, currently the financial crisis has damaged the real estate market creating a surplus of available homes. I assume that once the housing market turns around then there would be some success. Only a few houses have been constructed at the moment.

As for the compromise, I believe that the houses can not be seen from Popham beach.
Here is a statement from the realtor:
“I have to say that I think the developer did an excellent job accommodating both sides. The development is set well back and not visible from the Popham Road. It also has an incredible amount of untouched land that will never be developed. The developer also took great pains to ensure that the beach club blends with the surrounding cottages. In the end, I guess it depends on how you feel about development in the area. I have to say, I would not want to see the beauty of Popham spoiled with beachfront condos, but to each his own.”

As for in kind donations, I was always under the impression that they were mostly purchased by the campaign. Bruce, has not attempted to hide the fact that he donates (not loans) money to his campaign to show that he is financially vested in the campaign. He also, stated that since the beginning of the campaign he has received approximately 250,000 dollars in donations from over 1000 individuals. But he has never lied about or exaggerated any claims about his funds and the number of contributers as stated by Reg.
Rufus

01. Feb, 2010

That “1000 individuals” claim is another area where Bruce’s message folks are doing him a disservice. I’ll bore you a little further with a debunking of this claim.

The data is on the Ethics website for anyone to analyze if they want. He’s received 701 donations from 568 individual donors that are greater than $50. Many of these donors were kind enough to donate in both reporting periods and reached their maximum contribution of $750. He’s done a great job reaching out to these people. (BTW, Individuals do not include corporate donations of which Bruce received 47 donations.)

When you filter for donations from Maine residents the numbers drop to 349 donations that where >$50 from 296 people. So a little over half of his individual donations are from Maine residents. It would be interesting to know what percentage of them are likely Republican primary voters.

A candidate doesn’t have to report the names of people giving less than $50 but you can infer a minimum number of donors by taking the total and diving it by $50. This means there’s at least 200 people that gave less than $50. To get up to more than 1000 individual donors that would mean that at least 432 people donated less than an average of $23/each. I’ll admit that it’s possible but I consider it unlikely.

I would agree that Bruce has received more than 1000 donations from individuals but not from over 1000 individual donors. Are his campaign’s claims deceitful? People can decide for themselves.
Mike

01. Feb, 2010

A “staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment” would have answered NO on this question, PERIOD. You cannot answer YES to that question and be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment to any degree.

Background checks are anti-gun. None of our other constitutional rights are subject to background checks. Gun ownership shouldn’t be either. If you support gun control at any level you are out of touch with the people you are trying to represent. The current laws are anti-gun and any additional regulation would be even more anti-gun.

Answering YES to that question MEANS you are against the second amendment and gun rights. There is no murkiness on this issue. Misunderstanding the question is no excuse – that means you are simply not competent to be governor. Misunderstanding is even worse, in my opinion.

If you don’t care about gun rights, that’s fine. Then you can go ahead and support Bruce. But if you do care about gun rights, you can’t justify your support of someone who is more liberal on this issue than Libby mitchell and Steven Rowe.
Ben

01. Feb, 2010

I guess what I’m getting at Reid, is that this $4million environmentally friedly development is being presented as one of Mr. Poliquin’s success stories and it’s much too premature to view it as a success. It only sold one house.Did he spend $4million to build it? Apparently so. Did it go into back into the State economy, I guess it did and that was very generous of him. Has it turned out to be a good business decision? Not yet.

No, you do not see the condos from Popham Beach. They are 2 miles away from Popham Beach, but he is hoping to sell those condos and have the beach club available to them. The building is fine, it’s the amount of people he wants to funnel on to that property and on to the beach that the upset the community. He had a parcel with 2 cottages, now it’s a club for 150 household memberships. Will this affect the quality of life for the neighborhood? Without a doubt. His gain, their loss….
DaveInMaine

01. Feb, 2010

You Poliquin supporters are seriously the lamest bunch of excuse making, kool-aid drinking zombies I have ever seen.

There was a reason that basically everyone, including the Democrats, said “no” to this question. It is because it was VERY obviously asking about an extension of the background check beyond what we currently have. If they were asking “do you support the current law that basically everyone, including the NRA, supports”, not only would it be pointless, but they’d have said so.

He can claim ignorance if he wants, but everyone on that stage knew what the question was about – extending background checks to ALL guns.

He might have been able to claim it was a “mistake” to say that, but now we have proof he actually gave money to a group who wanted and still wants to go WAY further than that, and ban all guns. Kudos to Matt for doing the digging that none of the reporters in this frigging state seem to want to do.

Anyway, this excuse train is pathetic. It was a bad answer, admit it and move on.
Garrett

01. Feb, 2010

Mike, no offense, but you’re out of touch with gun owners on this. While a few like you may oppose instant background checks, the vast majority of gun owners (and NRA members) support them as a commonsense way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without violating their 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry, but you’re just wrong on this one.
Make Maine Right

01. Feb, 2010

The responses on this topic from the crazies shows that Bruce Poliquin is the frontrunner. Notice that everyone is attacking Bruce for not being a supporter of the Second Amendment and trying to discredit him. Bruce is in line with the NRA on this issue but all of the crazies don’t want to accept that. This just shows that Bruce is the candidate to fear. Mark Smith, “Rufus” is trying to discredit the number of donors he has and saying that it is deceitful. Mark and his wife Stephanie Dunn, have been on here taking shots at Bruce because they know he is lightyears ahead of their guy, Peter Mills. If people on this blog want to talk about people out of touch with Mainers how bout Peter Mills. He has voted to raise the sales tax and meals tax, he voted for homosexual marriage as well. That is out of touch with the people of Maine. Instead of focusing on this people are trying to discredit the frontrunner. It is shady politics and something we do not need here in Maine
Rufus

01. Feb, 2010

Oooh, great sleuthing there on outing me. Impressive. (Not really.)

I stand by the facts on the number of donors Poliquin has. I’ve also tried to be factual in all of my posts here. I don’t feel that there’s a need to lie about these things. You can choose to ignore the facts it but you can’t deny deny them.

I do truly believe that whoever is crafting Bruce’s message is doing a very poor job. He is a great candidate, I will not deny that fact, but when his message is littered with half-truths written by others on his behalf they do him no good.

BTW, The reasons that you cite for Peter being “out of touch with Mainers” are actually the reasons why people like myself and many others are volunteering for his campaign.
Alex Hammer

01. Feb, 2010

60 comments (it is a hornet’s nest).

I’m also a Yes.

I’m not anti-gun, but I am anti-crime, and I believe that this is both an important and meaningful distinction.

I believe advocating for background checks on gun purchasers to be a prudent measure.
Alex Hammer

01. Feb, 2010

Self-correct – Support would be a more accurate descriptor than advocate
Mike

01. Feb, 2010

Garrett, try reading. I didn’t use the word “instant”, and neither did Pat McGowan in his question. He was not referring to current law, either – only I was. Nor was he referring to laws governing Federally licensed firearms dealers. Anyone with half an ounce of sense would understand that. You seem to be as confused about this issue and out of touch as Bruce is.

Background checks have shown little to no ability to stop criminals from getting guns. They simply buy them through purchases not covered by background checks. You know what IS a good way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Keep criminals in jail.

MMR, the question was about extending background checks to cover private sales. The NRA does NOT support this; that’s a flat-out lie.

If tearing up the Bill of Rights and ignoring the Constitution puts you ahead, I’d rather be behind. Again, from the Maine Constitution:

“Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”

You don’t like that? Move.
Mike

01. Feb, 2010

Nobody who supports additional gun control measures is a great candidate for anything. Having answered “Yes” to this question, Bruce cannot win a statewide general election in Maine. You think Libby Mitchell and Steven Rowe said “No” because they’re big fans of gun rights? Of course not. But they do have half an ounce of political sense.

Maine has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. Maine has never elected a governor who favors additional gun control measures, and that will never change. If Scarcelli or Poliquin were to win their nominations they’d lose the general because of their answer to this question.

Even nationally less than half of Americans support stricter gun laws, and this number has only been dropping over the last ten years, not rising. Why do you think Obama has basically ignored the issue? It’s a toxic issue nationally, and it’s only more so in Maine.
Reid

01. Feb, 2010

“Mandatory Backrground checks on purchase of firearm.” I don’t see how tat is extending Maine law. NRA supports instant background checks, but instant is irrelevant because it is a form of background check. Bruce is supporting present Maine Law and the position of the NRA.

“Background checks have shown little to no ability to stop criminals from getting guns. They simply buy them through purchases not covered by background checks. You know what IS a good way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Keep criminals in jail.” – Does that serve as an excuse to let criminals buy guns? The background check is to make sure past criminals don’t receive guns; law-abiding citizens receive guns.

“Nobody who supports additional gun control measures is a great candidate for anything. Having answered “Yes” to this question, Bruce cannot win a statewide general election in Maine. You think Libby Mitchell and Steven Rowe said “No” because they’re big fans of gun rights?” – They don’t support support additional gun control measures. If you ask me, Eliot Cutler and Bruce are the only candidates who understand the purpose of instant background checks. Their views coincide with those of the NRA and Maine Law. This debate is becoming redundant. The question was whether you support mandatory background checks. Well, who doesn’t support instant background checks. “Instant” background checks are background checks, no?

Oh, no! Of course, bring out the constitution, just don’t understand that other are in jeopardy by giving gun rights to a past criminal. The constitution is not perfect for every situation… there are extraneous variables in which one action can affect two areas of the constitution. We need to then determine what is more important…
Make Maine Right

01. Feb, 2010

Rufus, I never said I did any great detective work to find out who you are. As for Peter being out of touch with Mainers, yes that is true. Just because you and your wife are Ron Paul supporters and No on 1 fans does not mean that Mills is looking out for all of Maine. So your candidate has sided himself with something that lost 63/37 IN HIS OWN DISTRICT. That doesnt mean he is looking out for the state, it means he is looking out for what he wants for himself.
Mike

01. Feb, 2010

Reid, Maine does not currently have mandatory background checks on all firearm purchases. If Bruce supports that, he is not supporting Maine law or the NRA position, he’s supporting the anti-gun, anti-constitution nuts.

McGowan’s question was covering extending current law; it was not referencing current law. The fact you fail to understand that, I suppose, explains how you can continue to support Bruce.

The constitution is, indeed, perfect for every situation. Nothing is more important than following the constitution. Allowing politicians to ignore the constitution in favor of their own priorities leads to tyranny. You want that, we might as well just call this whole democracy thing off.

Maine is a low-crime, high-gun ownership state. There’s no need to further restrict gun rights in Maine. The actions of criminals are not an excuse to ignore the constitution. That’s twisted, undemocratic logic.
Mike

01. Feb, 2010

Again, for those of you who fail to understand, here is current Maine law:

* Those purchasing guns from a Federally licensed firearm dealer are subject to background checks, whether they buy the gun at a show, in the shop, or at an Applebee’s.

* Individual sales are not covered by the background check requirement. A bill to require this was introduced in the first session of the 124th Legislature. The National Rifle Association, the Sportsmen’s Alliance of Maine, and a variety of other groups came together in opposition. It was shot down unanimously in committee.

* While not specific, it was clear to me (and most others) that McGowan’s question referred to expanding current law to cover individual sales.

* Maine has an extraordinarily low violent crime rate, and an even lower gun crime rate, while having a very high gun ownership rate.

* Very few guns used in crimes can actually be traced back to gun show sales, from a dealer or an individual.

* Many gun shows do not even allow private sales in connection with the show anyway.
Peggy

01. Feb, 2010

After reading this thread, I just had to comment. I haven’t voted for a Republican in a very long time, and I’m not sure whom I’ll vote for in the next governor’s race. What I do know is that Bruce is indeed the nicest, most genuine person, with no hidden agenda except to help Maine. Any negative comments about his hiding anything or not being forthcoming are laughable. This is not the guy you need to criticize for something like that. Bruce is what he is, and says what he means. His businesses are transparent and there’s information out there. Thank goodness he worked so hard and did so well earlier in his life that he is now in a position to run this race and donate some of his own money to getting his message across. Someone has to be really cynical to question Bruce Poliquin’s integrity or sincerity. As for the background checks for gun ownership? He did not say he was against gun ownership, for heaven’s sake. He said he wants background checks. In this day and age, that’s not a bad idea. Again, that doesn’t mean one can’t own a gun. (Unless one is found to be a felon or mentally unstable.) Let’s not overreact. The NRA doesn’t even overreact to that. This guy’s the real thing, and may be just what Maine needs.
Johanna Galt

02. Feb, 2010

First off, the question was, “Do you support mandatory background checks for ALL firearm sales in Maine?”. That is not an ambiguous question. No confusion there. It was a simple direct clear question. And I am certain the words were chosen correctly in order to ask it. So, please, knock it off. The question is the question. His answer is his answer.

Secondly, the criminals are not lining up to follow the law. Law abiding citizens follow the law.

Does anyone remember the proposed bill last session to address ‘the Uncle Henry’s loophole’?

And in regards to the NRA…it is an organization that supports gun control.

Most current example: The NRA has hired as their head counsel for McDonald v. Chicago, Paul Clement, the attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller.

Clement: “The Second Amendment talks about “the right to bear arms”, not just “a right to bear arms”. And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.” Yup…THIS is who the NRA hires to fight the McDonald case.

Here is a link that illustrates: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/26/nra-cares-more-about-nra-than-gun-rights-liberty-professional-courtesy/

Now, as far as Bruce is concerned, and my perspective: my right to self-defense is not to be gambled with or traded in for a possibility that a wizard, yeah, some biz-wiz, will fix our local economics. I don’t care how great a business manager a person is, if you believe that ‘reasonable’ restrictions whether they be background checks, ammo limits or trigger locks etc..are acceptable, there really is no limit to the outcomes. The definition of ‘reasonable’ has been known to change in other States across our Union and if one studies history there is plenty of info to educate on how gun-control evolves into total disarmament of populations. Each ‘small’ encroachment leads to another.

Everyone and their brother needs to know that Bruce Poliquin allows for this. Again, gun laws only restrict the law abiding.

Without the right of the individual to bare arms, all other rights are not secure. Period.
Mike G

02. Feb, 2010

The guy gave 500 bucks to Handgun Control Inc in 1989 that says it all.

This is not about the NRA, it’s about the 2nd amendment, Maine’s constitution and Poliquin’s potential election to the head seat.

He might make a viable democrat candidate, because dems love the heavy hand of government upon our lives.
Alex Hammer

03. Feb, 2010

I discuss and expand on Rosa’s challenge on this gun background checks issue on my WGAN interview yesterday. http://bit.ly/9mP3x4

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

The Chaotic Campaign Of Steve Rowe | Pine Tree Politics - 03. Feb, 2010
[...] brings me to the AGC forum that I wrote about previously. Missed in all the fuss about Bruce Poliquin’s answer on background checks was a [...]
Is The Information Age Killing Genial Maine Elections? | Pine Tree Politics - 04. Feb, 2010
[...] for example, the tone of conversation here on Pine Tree Politics. Go to really any article about one of the candidates, and watch unfold the bloodbath. What you will see is any number of the supporters of one [...]
What Candidate Donations Continue To Tell Us | Pine Tree Politics - 19. Jun, 2010
[...] on, I have dug a little deeper into donations, and uncovered a donation by Bruce Poliquin to what is now the Brady Campaign – something that caused him a severe [...]
GOP Candidates on Creationism in Maine’s Schools | Pine Tree Politics - 22. Jun, 2010
[...] Poliquin has avoided taking a socially conservative position on such issues as gay marriage, and gun control. Poliquin may be trying to tap into support from social conservatives. His supporters are as [...]

Pine Tree Politics