Last week I brought you a story out of Norway, Maine where the town manager, David Holt, and the selectmen decided to not allow any guns in the town office building or property. Neither Holt nor any of the selectmen would give an explanation other than to say that someone supposedly was on the premise and appeared to be threatening.
The Lewiston Sun Journal carried the story and this is what that article said about Norway Police Chief, Robert Federico.
Police Chief Robert Federico said that in light of recent events nationally he does support the initiative, although he would have to give some thought to whether he would support a policy restricting the public from carrying weapons on town property.
In my article I laid as much criticism on the actions of the police chief as I did Holt and the selectmen.
Even the Norway police chief says that because of the events “nationallyâ€, he supports disarming Maine residents. Are you kidding me? What if our founding fathers thought that the best way to deal with the American revolution was to first disarm the citizens?
From what was written by the Sun Journal, it sounded to me that Chief Federico approved of the ban on guns at the town office but wasn’t sure about banning them on all town property.
Being an extremely busy week for me this week, I didn’t have time to further research this story but I found someone who cared enough to send an email to Chief Federico. His name is Paul Mattson who is a registered user at the New England Outdoor Voice, a website and forums whose main focus is on fishing, hunting and all outdoor activities across New England.
Paul’s email, a bit on the unusual side in that it wasn’t a name-calling, rant of anger, hate and vitriol, simply stated that while he (Chief Federico) and the town of Norway consider a ban on the lawful possession of a firearm on town property, they take into account the Maine and U.S. Constitutions. Mattson also makes mention that many of the recent killings in so-called “gun free zones” could have prevented loss of life if lawful citizens could have been armed for protection.
Mattson’s response from Chief Federico is quite interesting to say the least. (Follow this link to read the entire text of Mattson’s email and Chief Federico’s response.)
I couldn’t agree with you more. As you know the media doesn’t always capture the whole picture. I was not aware of any ban of any kind. I heard about the Town’s policy when I read the paper like many others.
I find this quite troubling actually. If you consider the actions of the town manager and the board of selectmen, I find it hard to believe that they would approve an act that’s not only perhaps illegal, going against the Maine and U.S. Constitutions, but that such an act wouldn’t first require the input from the Chief of Police? This is a legal matter and one that would involve enforcement of the new law.
Isn’t it also reasonable to suggest that before such a move like this was made that the town officials would want to bring in heads of all departments within the administration, inform them of the proposal and seek legal counsel from the town’s lawyer?
Perhaps the town did seek legal counsel and if they did why wasn’t the Chief of Police brought into this discussion?
Chief Federico, in his email to Paul Mattson, sheds some light on the “incident” that prompted the banning of guns.
This seems to stem from a recent incident where a town employee was accused of making threats, to an ex-girlfriend, about harming a co-worker.
Federico explains that he investigated this incident and found no unlawful conduct but here’s something to consider. Chief Federico shares with Mattson his position on gun banning.
As for whether I would endorse a policy restricting firearms on all town property, I would not.
Maybe this is the reason the Chief wasn’t contacted. Maybe the town officials knew how Chief Federico would react to such a proposal.
The Chief refers to the reporter from the Sun Journal and says when he was contacted, he didn’t know what she (the reporter) was talking about.
When I was contacted by the Lewiston paper, I had no idea what she was talking about. That is why I made the comment that I would have to give it some thought.
We as citizens should not take lightly any issue that involves limitations on our rights guaranteed us under our constitution. This entire episode from what I have been able to piece together, seems a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that may have been emotionally charged by those involved. Deal with that issue, don’t react without considering the consequences of the actions in order to do something that might be perceived as effective actions.
Some have thought my criticisms where a bit harsh. Perhaps they were but nothing I have said are in any way directed as personal attacks against David Holt or the Norway selectmen. My response was for their actions of which I and many other citizens of this country see as deeply disturbing and wrong. It can’t be allowed to go unchecked.
I have heard many times in arguments surrounding emotional debates on guns, the “what if” factor. In a case such as this, although I know little of the details so I’ll talk in general terms, emotions can tell us that there is a chance someone could come onto town property with a gun and hurt somebody – perhaps a moment of rage or as we have seen, a mental condition. Can we stop this in a free society? No, but for some reason we think that passing laws that only put limitations on lawful, sane citizens is the answer.
Use the same reasoning for a moment if you will. There is a chance, as I said, that someone might walk into the Norway town office with a gun and hurt or kill someone. This could happen anywhere in America, at anytime. If we attempt to lessen that risk by banning guns, then how do you answer those who now no longer have the right to defend themselves against such a person?
If the chance exists that someone in a town office in Anytown, America could be harmed by an angry gunman, there is just as much a chance that an American citizen conducting everyday business in that same town office can be killed because they have had their constitutional rights stripped from them and are left defenseless.
The important thing to remember here is that if someone is insane or are angry enough to cause the chaos envisioned by those seeking a gun ban, having such a ban isn’t going to stop them from hurting somebody if that’s their goal. Not allowing someone to be able to defend themselves, as is guaranteed by our constitutions, is inexcusable.
Tom Remington
