Whether you agree or not, U.S. Senator Angus King has sought to portray himself as an independent. Yes, he caucuses with the Democrats and more times than not, votes with them on key issues. But on gun rights, he was moderate. The one thing he did in the past that won him points with us, was tell the truth about modern semi-automatic firearms. Eleven years ago, he wrote the best explanation we had seen to date explain- ing why AR-style rifles are no different than traditional semi-automatic firearms used for hunting and recreational shooting. He got it right for the last decade, but we do not understand why he has it so wrong today. Here is the 2013 OPED Angus King wrote in the Bangor Daily News. The italicized section is clear and more importantly, cuts through the political rhetoric and falsehoods promoted by gun control advocates.

In the coming days, the U.S. Senate will take up gun control. In my short tenure, no issue has generated as much interest, public engagement or passion as this one. As the debate in the Senate begins, I think it is appropriate that I lay out my position as clearly as possible to the peo- ple of Maine. In thinking this through, I have sat with gun owners, hunters, long- time gun control advocates and citizens from across Maine. After a great deal of thought, here is where I stand:

1. The problem of gun violence in our society simply cannot be ignored. Every year, more than 30,000 people die from gun-shots — either accidental, suicide or crime related. Gun murders now total more than 10,000 a year — which is the equivalent of a Newtown tragedy every single day. Put another way, it’s as if a town the size of Auburn was wiped out — every man, woman and child — every year, year in and year out. No society that calls itself civilized can accept self-inflicted tragedy on this scale.
2. The Second Amendment is a fun- damental and important part of our Constitution and must be respected and observed, and any legislation we pass must square with its terms and respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. I believe the steps outlined below meet that test.
3. Our experience here in Maine demonstrates that widespread gun own- ership does not equate to widespread gun crime; we have one of the highest percent- ages of gun ownership in the country and one of the lowest rates of gun violence. This suggests to me that the key questions are “who can obtain a gun?” and “what are reasonable ways that guns can be kept out of the wrong hands?”
4. I have therefore concluded that the single most effective step we can take is to expand the current system of criminal background checks to all firearm trans- actions, with common sense exceptions for transfers within families. Just as is the case under the current gun dealer-only system, this can be done without creating a national gun registry and without burdening law-abiding citizens. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those few mentally ill persons who are prone to violence is the best defense we have against gun crime.
5. We should make it a federal crime to traffic guns between states for the purpose of providing them to people who could not purchase them legally and increase the penalties for straw purchasing — buying a gun for transfer to another who is legally prohibited from purchasing it themselves.
6. It is time to limit magazine size to no more than 10 rounds. Gun owners and sportsmen have told me that this limitation would not significantly inhibit their use of firearms and could save lives, particularly in a Newtown or Aurora-type situation.
7. After a great deal of thought, however, I am not prepared to support the proposed ban on so-called assault weapons — principally because I just don’t think it will work. It is important to emphasize that these weapons have exactly the same firing mechanism and functionality as the common semi-automatic hunting rifles owned by thousands of Maine residents. Although their looks may be more menacing, they do not shoot any faster, farther, or with more power than conventional hunting rifles; and contrary to popular belief, they are not fully automatic, with the ability to spray bullets with one pull of the trigger. In addition, the vast majority of gun crimes — well over 90 percent — involve handguns, not rifles, assault or otherwise.

In the past, when evaluating Senator Angus King’s support of gun control measures, his positions on issues like expanding background checks, limiting magazine capacity, strengthening the penalties for gun trafficking were well known. His thoughtful opposition to banning semi-automatic firearms was significant enough to earn him a decent grade from the SAM-ILA. In addition, his advocacy on conservation policy was exemplary. But that was then, and this is now. Unfortunately, many of King’s positions have changed, based upon his answers to the SAM-ILA 2024 pre-election questionnaire. He now supports a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms, raising the age from 18 to 21 to purchase the same, supports Red Flag laws with “due process protections” not sure what that means and, is now undecided on “Removing limitations on the civil liability of gun manufacturers” and, maintains the position in his words “wants to “better understand limitations on gun manufacturers and if there are similar limitations on manufacturers of other products.” Let me save him some time. Repealing civil protections for gun manufacturers is the end of firearm manufacturing in the United States. Absent these legal protections, lawyers for Michael Bloomberg and his ilk will sue manufacturers out of existence. Angus King is smart and experienced. He knows this and it is, by far, his most troubling recent change in position. Why Sen. King has changed on these critical positions is unknown to the SAM-ILA. Sen. King’s current positions outlined above clearly suggest his support of the Second Amendment is fading fast. Because of his new stance on ARs and gun control, Senator King deserves the SAM-ILA board’s lowest grade: “F”.