Submitted by SobeysBags t3_yibypi in Maine
Guygan t1_iuhxsgy wrote
> Any investigations, actions taken by Maine authorities?
Not Maine authorities. It would be federal. It literally says in the article that the FBI and ATF are investigating.
SobeysBags OP t1_iui36v9 wrote
FBI held evidence for the RCMP, they did no investigate further than that. ATF spoke to the guy in Houlton, investigation did not go further than that. Nothing is currently occurring.
"A senior RCMP officer, Supt. Darren Campbell, told the commission he was dissatisfied with the force's (ATF, FBI) investigation of Wortman's firearms.
"In terms of those that assisted him, I would say for me, personally, I'm not satisfied that we've been able to conclude what I believe the expectations of survivors and victim families would expect and personally, me as a police officer and investigator, what I would wish to accomplish, in terms of the provision of firearms. That is the outstanding element for me," Campbell said."
Guygan t1_iui3gz2 wrote
You asked if they investigated.
Clearly they did.
Maine authorities don't have jurisdiction over what happened with this guy. It's the Feds.
SobeysBags OP t1_iui5a3e wrote
Nova Scotia authorities don't either, but the provincial government and authorities have been heavily involved to discern the events, and what can be improved to prevent this from occurring again in the future (hosting commissions etc). There seems to be no interest by the State of Maine to do something similar in this regard. Seems like they would want to since this is hurting relations with Maine and it's provincial neighbors. Head on over to the Nova Scotia reddit, it's pure hatred towards the state by many, and it appears to be growing unfortunately which each passing month. :-(
Guygan t1_iui5m4d wrote
> There seems to be no interest by the State of Maine to do something similar in this regard
Maine law has no jurisdiction over the transfer of firearms, or the international trafficking of firearms. The Constitution prevents it.
SobeysBags OP t1_iui78jh wrote
Neither does Nova Scotia in Canada, but they still work with the feds, and create committees and commissions to address it on the provincial level. The province also is debating and discussing how local laws and systems can change to prevent this from occurring again. This is certainly in the realm of possibility for Maine.
Guygan t1_iui7mfp wrote
> they still work with the feds
Any evidence that Maine law enforcement isn't cooperating with the FBI and ATF? They certainly are if they were asked to.
> how local laws and systems can change to prevent this from occurring again
AGAIN, state law cannot regulate the transfer of firearms. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO. So why have a commission or committee?
SobeysBags OP t1_iui8zaz wrote
I think that was my main issue, are they working with the feds? there is no news on this, no reports, no info form Maine authorities. It's radio silence.
States can have laws on the transfer of firearms, most states do above and beyond federal law. Maine, of course, has nothing on the books when it comes to the transfer of firearm's between private parties. But there is no debate on this in Augusta, not even a second look. This would be the purpose of a commission or committee, to see if having some sort of state laws on the books would be possible or worth doing.
Guygan t1_iui9ruo wrote
> are they working with the feds?
Why would they have to? Federal authorities are perfectly capable and competent to investigate this. And, again, how do you know they aren't? What leads you to believe that they aren't? And why is this so important to you?
Asking the state to have a commission about something that is federal jurisdiction is like asking a town in Maine to have a commission about Canadian law. What's the point?
It seems as if no one broke the law here. And there's no public policy reason to prosecute or change Maine law.
Maybe you need to study US civics, and the policy and politics of firearm regulation in order to understand this.
SobeysBags OP t1_iuihel1 wrote
"Why would they have to?" : Because it would be in the state best interest to know when firearms' are being moved across their border, the results in the death of Canadians or Americans. Apathy is not preferable.
"How do you know they aren't? What leads you to believe that they aren't?" : That 's the issue I have there is nothing being reported. I was quite clear in my original comment. It's radio silence. If the feds came out and said they are actively investigating, with updates, and agendas, then there would be less issue. Since they are not relating any press releases on the worst mass shooting in Canadian history, my assumption is they are currently doing nothing. would love to be proven wrong on this.
Why is it important to me? " Seriously?! 20+ people are dead, including a colleague's wife. It would be nice if the State of Maine, at least pretended to care.
​
Actually laws may have been broken at the federal level, as outlined in the original article. It is against the law to provide firearms' to a non-resident or foreign national in the USA. This has a maximum penalty of up to 10 years in prison. This is why the federal authorities in Canada are not happy with the investigation performed by the feds in the USA. As outlined in the article.
As I mentioned in my previous comment US States can very much pass laws regulating firearms, especially with regard to the transfer of firearms' between two private parties (which Maine is the outliers and have nothing on the books), this is why you would have a commission or committee.
Guygan t1_iuii7zv wrote
> it would be in the state best interest to know when firearms' are being moved across their border
Well, they KNOW that they were, because the Feds investigated, and released the info. So there you go. THE STATE OF MAINE KNOWS. They do not have to be involved in a FEDERAL investigation in order to know this. So, your mind can now be at ease. The State of Maine knows. Phew.
> US States can very much pass laws regulating firearms
They can't when it involves foreign nationals and stuff moved across the border.
SobeysBags OP t1_iuilju2 wrote
Point missed. It's about knowing and taking action for the FUTURE, again, any law/changes the state wishes to pursue, say for example having more than a wink and a handshake to transfer firearms, the state would very much be involved in that along with the feds as they would be breaking state and federal law in that scenario. With this particular mass shooter, if he had to provide some sort of ID or background check to get a gun from a private individual or gun show, he would have shown up on the State's radar to purse and pass on to the Feds. That didn't and could not have happened.
I don't think you would be so flippant, if this foreign national was a terrorist and decided to take out his rage on unsuspecting Mainers. You better believe the State of Maine would get involved then at every opportunity, they wouldn't be passing the buck to the feds, they would want to know what went wrong, and how it can be prevented in the future, and how they can work with the feds to create solutions. Yet since it happened to Canadians and Canadian law enforcement, Maine doesn't even want to talk about it? Very short sighted, and dangerous, next time it could Mainers that are killed. Not the time to rest on your laurels.
ServiceMX t1_iuj4psb wrote
Maine had a referendum on universal background checks in 2016. The "pro" side was massively funded by out-of-state political action committees. It was still voted down by a majority of Mainers. I believe you will find there is little political will for universal background checks in Maine at this time.
Feel free to advocate for them, but you will find that a Canadian's perspective on Maine gun laws is generally as welcome in Maine as a Mainer's perspective on Canadian gun laws would be in Canada.
SobeysBags OP t1_iuj84ou wrote
Dang that was a slim margin to be sure. 51/48. looks like another one might be ready to go.
ServiceMX t1_iuj8opi wrote
I honestly don’t think so, as Maine has since passed permitless carry and it has, anecdotally, appeared very popular. That said, my opinion is only based on my experience of living in Maine and interacting with the population. Your opinion is based on (respectfully) wishful thinking.
The only way that either of our opinions would be confirmed is by polling, which is expensive and ordinarily only conducted if legislation or referenda are in the cards. Given that they are not, looks like private sales will remain the status quo for the foreseeable future.
SobeysBags OP t1_iujjcm7 wrote
I've lived in Maine for many years and interacted with population as well. I remember when people thought the same as yourself when it came to Gay marriage and legal pot, and this things changed rather quickly (and sadly can change back). Ya never know, the USA is a weird place sometimes.
ServiceMX t1_iujjmxl wrote
Right, but according to my undergrad political science classes legal pot, gay marriage, and gun rights are all on the “freedom” side of the tradition “freedom versus order” that is a classical political dilemma.
By this measure, it would appear that Mainers appear to err towards this side, as the same ballot that passed legal pot by referendum was the one that shot down universal background checks. Both results were from the 2016 vote on referenda.
SobeysBags OP t1_iujkd7a wrote
It's strange, because gun background checks would give people the right to be free of gun violence. It's always about perspective
ServiceMX t1_iujl5wn wrote
That’s more of a matter of phrasing than a political classification of a freedom. Generally “freedom” would be a more permissive structure for ownership and acquisition of an item, and “order” would be restriction of ownership by erring towards protection of society rather than the freedoms of the individual.
For example, a law that prevents you from saying the word “moist,” does not protect my freedom from getting the heebie-jeebies. Restrictive law enforces order, relaxed law protects freedom, according to the classical paradigm. Neither is objectively good or bad.
By all means, continue advocating for your beliefs. Your efforts may see more success if you’re prepared to accept the political reality on the ground.
SobeysBags OP t1_iujyj9t wrote
I would say the USA has some radical thoughts on "freedom", especially when it comes to guns. I take my info from the many indexes presented all over the world. Much more dynamic than the simple bipolar spectrum of what I can have or own without restriction, which Americans have a tendency to over amplify in their political debates. It's a give and take and I don't think simply relaxed laws protect freedom. It's a balance, of which the USA is currently lopsided. This is why the USA ranks quite low on most freedom indexes within the developed world. Anyway, waaaay off topic.
ServiceMX t1_iujzgbp wrote
Most Mainers I know are aware that we have a cultural relationship to guns that differs from yours. If you’re in this subreddit to educate us on that, or find a sympathetic ear for your particular views, you might be unsurprised to hear that most of us aren’t really interested.
If you want to change these things, posting on /r/Maine is probably not the best place to begin. If you want to complain about them, likewise. Your original question was answered in good faith.
SobeysBags OP t1_iuk101m wrote
I didn't bring up any of the gun laws or rules. That was brought up by yourself. I made no desire to change these things, I was asking about the lack of care or interest in a mass shooting that involved the state. I made no push to educate on the culture of guns from the outset, I made no complaints, and in all honesty got some serious interest and true good faith answers (and not the tongue and cheek absolutism, others provided). Anyway, have a good day. I recommend if you don't want to go down rabbit holes, don't bring up unrelated questions. Focus is a virtue
MaineJackalope t1_iuimco0 wrote
The likelihood of Mainers making their own gun laws stricter because of something that happened in another state or country is slim to none.
SobeysBags OP t1_iuiusrf wrote
ya it might hoping against hope. Ain't going to help cross border tourism, there are already calls to boycott. How successful something like that would be, is anyone's guess. People in Nova Scotia are genuinely angry.
MaineJackalope t1_iuiysm7 wrote
Most Mainers also hate tourists so that's not gonna help.
I think if I were to rate the things Mainers hate it'd go
- Mosquitos
- Tourists
- People outside the state telling us how to run our shit.
SobeysBags OP t1_iuj7h6w wrote
True. However everyone in Maine hates tourists until they are gone. I recall businesses going under in droves due to Covid (Canadian border closures, less American tourists due to mandates etc.). Mainers seemed to love tourists then, when it hit them where it hurts, their wallets.
ozzie286 t1_iuizhpd wrote
Because one Canadian nut smuggled 3 handguns from Maine into Canada? This very much sounds like Canadian border agents screwed up. This is not something that Maine laws or regulations would have had much effect on - the handgun that was gifted, possibly, but the 2 that were stolen? The guy still would have stolen them and smuggled them, his corpse would just be guilty of a few more crimes.
You're looking for someone to blame. Stop trying to make it our fault.
saigonk t1_iuj2wvn wrote
Well, if the gun was "gifted" to the shooter and he wasn't a US Citizen then the person who did so is in violation of federal law and should be punished. That is unless the receiving person who is not a citizen possessed a valid hunting license, in which case he/she can possess that firearm.
He admitted to it directly, yet here we are with nothing happening. Also, I suspect the "he stole the other two" line isn't sitting well with the RCMP as they probably dont believe him.
ozzie286 t1_iuj8bpa wrote
A) it is not illegal for a US resident to give a Canadian resident a gun. There is a procedure for it, which afaics was not followed.
B) That's federal law, not state. ATF, which is a federal agency, is obviously aware and has declined to prosecute him. Ask them for answers, not r/Maine.
C) we're not talking about a black market arms dealer here. We're talking about a guy who trusted someone enough to invite them into their home, work on their home, and gift them a firearm. This is not the crime of the century, it's a procedural oversight.
SobeysBags OP t1_iuj5vc6 wrote
The shooter had a Nexus card, which means he needed clearance from both border patrols. Both CBSA and US border patrol are reviewing their guidelines, and CBSA is definitely way more strict now, but do you really expect them to search EVERY car, its unrealistic. It takes two to tango in this situation. Dealing with American guns is costing the Canadian taxpayer some serious $$$ now. It's becoming a a major issue, and the USA and Maine can ignore it until it affects them, or be proactive.
While the guy stole guns from his "friend", he was also gifted some by his "Friend" in Houlton, and got the others at a gun show in Houlton. Technically giving or selling a gun to a non-resident is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. But since Maine doesn't require any back ground check for buyers at gun shows or private sales, this went well below the radar. Essentially in Maine if the person "looks and talks" like an American are you really going to ask them for proof of citizenship? The shooter knew this, and was able to determine where to get guns and where to steal them and buy them with little suspicion. Also leaving guns improperly stored and easily accessible can be a crime in Maine, which apparently was the case when the shooter stole the guns. No charges have been laid on anyone.
Never said it was Maine's fault, and I blame the shooter. But when your neighbor has easily accessible guns for any nut-job to get their hands on, there is point when they stop being a good neighbor and start being an accessory. I don't think we have reached that point with Maine, but the State's silence currently speaks volumes.
ozzie286 t1_iuk0gry wrote
He also inherited one of the guns from a friend in Canada in 2009, despite being barred from gun ownership after a 2002 conviction, and the RCMP failed to act on information about his illegal gun stash in at least 2011 and 2013.
Wikipedia also disagrees with the sources of the guns. Of the five, one rifle he inherited, the other was bought by a friend at a gun store in California and then given to him. He acquired one pistol from the guy in the article, another was loaned to him by someone else, and the fifth was a service pistol from one of the cops he shot. Nothing about a gun show in Houlton.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_iuk0icf wrote
>On April 18–19, 2020, Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, killing 22 people and injuring three others before he was shot and killed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Enfield. For most of the thirteen-hour crime spree, Wortman was driving a replica RCMP cruiser and may have been wearing parts of an RCMP uniform. On December 4, three people, including Wortman's partner, were charged with supplying him with ammunition later used in the attacks.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
SobeysBags OP t1_iuk1kd8 wrote
Ya never said it was all Maine weapons. Some serious balls were dropped in Canada hence the commission, and some extreme law changes. Canada and Nova Scotia acted on it and made changes, and they are still.imvesotgotng and calling people to testify . But that's half the battle, the American border is proving a difficult issue. Having some support by federal and state governments would be appreciated, but it is becoming more and more apparent there is little will or care. Sadly.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments