In the wake of Lewiston, it wasn't particularly shocking to see the legislature pass gun control. Maine is a long-time blue state that was a bit of an anomaly when it came to guns. I mean, they were a pretty pro-gun state at a time when most blue states wanted to do everything they could to restrict the Second Amendment rights of residents.

Lewiston changed that, though. Gun control being passed in response wasn't a good thing, but it wasn't surprising either.

However, if you thought anti-gunners were done, think again.

Debate over Maine’s firearm laws returned to the State House on Wednesday as lawmakers took up a slate of new gun bills and advocates on both sides turned out for a full day of hearings.

One set of bills focused on gun control would ban bump stocks and other rapid-fire devices, prohibit large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, and ban untraceable “ghost guns.”

Another set of gun rights proposals would ease Maine’s concealed carry law, which allows lawful firearm owners 21 and older to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

They included bills to lower the minimum age to 18 and remove the requirement for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in state parks and Acadia National Park, a proposal the bill’s sponsor described as a “cleanup” of state law to better align it with park rules and federal law. A third bill would eliminate the requirement that anyone carrying a concealed handgun without a permit and who comes in contact with a law enforcement officer during an arrest, detainment or traffic stop immediately inform the officer they are carrying.

The Judiciary Committee heard more than seven hours of testimony on the proposals Wednesday, including emotional testimony from a Portland-area student who cried as she recounted witnessing a shooting outside a restaurant when she was in third grade. She urged lawmakers to support the gun control bills.

“Gun violence has a devastating impact on individuals, communities and society,” said the student, who identified herself only using her first name, Iris.

“We need to implement gun safety laws if we’re ever going to create a society where gun violence is not an everyday fear,” she said. “We cannot ignore the trauma and fear that has built up in people. It is unbelievable to know we can take this fear away, yet we don’t.”

I'm sure that was awful for Iris. However, her experiences when she was in third grade are irrelevant, especially since we don't know any specifics of what happened--assuming, of course, that it did happen. I wouldn't put it past any anti-gunner to fabricate a story of a shooting just to get sympathy, though I have no real reason to doubt "Iris" here.

It just doesn't matter what she experienced, harsh as that might sound.

See, the problem here is that we have no reason to believe that what Iris saw had anything to do with bump stocks or other rapid-fire devices, standard-capacity magazines, or so-called ghost guns. We have no reason at all to believe it involved lawful gun ownership at all, if we're being honest, so why should law-abiding citizens carry the burden of what happened?

And really, the only reason "gun violence" is "and everyday fear" is because the media hypes it up so much.

Look, I live in a high-crime city. My neighborhood isn't what anyone would describe as the best. We've had two shootings in the neighborhood in the decade I've lived here, which is more than most people see in a lifetime. I even saw the shooter on the last one, though he didn't raise his gun to fire a shot when I was looking at him--otherwise, I'd have written some interesting pieces after that--but I've seen more than most people ever do.

If anyone should see it as an everyday threat, I'd have to be right up on that list.

Yet I don't.

I need to move, to be sure, and that's something we're working on, but in a high-crime city, in a semi-rough neighborhood, I've been here for two different shootings--only one resulting in injury, and that not life-threatening--and I'm sure as hell not seeing it as an everyday fear. Why would anyone else?

Now, there are some pro-gun bills introduced in Maine, and I'd like to think that Lewiston won't play a factor in any negative way with those bills. I can see an argument that constitutional carry might have been useful in stopping Lewiston before it got so ugly--I can see it because it's probably true--but will a blue state listen to those arguments?

Honestly, it's going to be a good test of where Maine really stands on guns here and now. Gov. Janet Mills hasn't been the worst Democratic governor when it comes to guns, for the most part, and it's entirely likely that Maine's gun history will keep some of this stupid in check, but we'll have to see.

Editor's Note: Day in and day out, we bring you daily Second Amendment news you can trust. Help us continue to defend our sacred right to keep and bear arms and bring you the truth.

Join Bearing Arms VIP today and use promo FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.