Hawaii Expands Mental Health Gun Restrictions Database
Maine has joined the growing list of states taking action against rapid-fire modification devices with the passage of “An Act to Create a Civil Cause of Action for Persons Suffering Damages Arising from the Sale of Abnormally Dangerous Firearms.” This legislation represents a significant shift in how the state approaches firearm accessories and creates new legal vulnerabilities for sellers and manufacturers. While proponents argue the law enhances public safety, Second Amendment advocates raise concerns about constitutional overreach and the precedent it sets for future restrictions.
The new Maine law introduces several key provisions that fundamentally alter the legal landscape for certain firearm accessories:
The legislation’s language regarding “abnormally dangerous firearms” introduces a new legal concept that could potentially expand beyond bump stocks to other firearm accessories or even certain types of firearms themselves, depending on judicial interpretation.
From a Second Amendment perspective, this law raises several constitutional concerns that merit careful examination:
By defining bump stocks as machine guns, Maine’s law conflicts with federal definitions and potentially exceeds state authority. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has fluctuated on this classification over the years, and federal courts have issued conflicting rulings on whether bump stocks constitute machine guns under federal law.
The ban on possession of previously legal items raises Fifth Amendment concerns regarding takings without just compensation. Maine residents who legally purchased bump stocks before the ban now face criminal penalties for continued possession, effectively requiring them to surrender or destroy their property without compensation.
The term “abnormally dangerous firearms” lacks clear definition and could be subject to broad interpretation. This vagueness may violate due process requirements that laws provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. The civil liability provision also creates uncertainty for sellers who may not know which products could later be deemed “abnormally dangerous.”
The law’s impact on interstate commerce, particularly for online sellers and manufacturers located outside Maine, raises questions about the state’s authority to regulate beyond its borders. This could face challenges under the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine.
The practical effects of this law extend far beyond bump stock owners and have implications for the broader firearms community in Maine:
Law-abiding citizens who legally purchased bump stocks now face a difficult choice: dispose of their property without compensation or risk criminal prosecution. There appears to be no grandfather clause or grace period for compliance, creating immediate jeopardy for owners.
Gun store owners and firearms dealers face new liability risks. The civil cause of action provision means they could be sued for damages even if they followed all applicable laws at the time of sale. This uncertainty may cause some dealers to restrict inventory or cease operations entirely.
The “abnormally dangerous” classification creates a concerning precedent. Today it applies to bump stocks, but the vague language could potentially expand to include:
While bump stocks are primarily recreational accessories, the broader principle of restricting firearm accessories based on perceived danger rather than actual criminal use sets a precedent that could impact tools more directly related to self-defense.
This law will likely face legal challenges on multiple grounds. Similar laws in other states have met with mixed success in the courts, and the Supreme Court’s recent emphasis on text, history, and tradition in Second Amendment cases (as outlined in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen) may provide new avenues for challenge.
The civil liability provision is particularly vulnerable to challenge, as it attempts to create retroactive liability for conduct that was legal at the time. This ex post facto concern, combined with due process issues, may prove fatal to this aspect of the law.
Maine’s new law represents a significant escalation in state-level firearm regulation, moving beyond simple prohibition to create new civil liabilities for sellers and manufacturers. While public safety concerns are legitimate and deserve serious consideration, the constitutional issues raised by this approach cannot be ignored.
The law’s vague language, retroactive effects, and novel liability theories create uncertainty for law-abiding citizens and businesses while potentially exceeding constitutional boundaries. As this law faces inevitable legal challenges, Maine residents must engage in thoughtful dialogue about balancing public safety with constitutional rights.
Rather than pursuing broad bans and creating new liabilities for previously legal conduct, policymakers should focus on enforcing existing laws against actual criminal misuse of firearms. The Second Amendment protects not just the right to keep and bear arms, but also the accessories and modifications that law-abiding citizens choose for lawful purposes.
As citizens concerned with preserving our constitutional rights, we must remain vigilant against incremental erosions of the Second Amendment, even when they target accessories rather than firearms themselves. Today’s “abnormally dangerous” classification could easily become tomorrow’s justification for broader restrictions.
Stand up for your Second Amendment rights and show your support for constitutional freedoms. Visit Support the Second Amendment – Shop Our Store to find quality gear and accessories that celebrate and defend our right to keep and bear arms. Every purchase helps support the fight for our constitutional liberties.