The “Maine Background Checks for Gun Sales Measure,” presented on this election’s ballot as Question 3, asks voters a fairly straightforward question:

“Do you want to require background checks prior to the sale or transfer of firearms between individuals not licensed as firearms dealers, with failure to do so punishable by law, and with some exceptions for family members, hunting, self-defense, lawful competitions, and shooting range activity?”

Licensed dealers already must perform background checks on anyone wishing to purchase a firearm. Ballot Question 3 would simply extend that requirement to all gun sales or exchanges of guns within Maine aside from those between family members and sanctioned activities.

Licensed dealers would be entrusted with performing the checks as if it were their own sale, employing the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System which has a 99.8 percent accuracy.

As with licensed sales, those with previous records of criminal activity would be denied. Those with a record of domestic violence or illegal possession of a controlled substance, or legally declared mentally unfit would also be denied their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

To sell a gun one wouldn’t be required to become licensed, but to purchase a gun one would have to submit to a background check just like those making their purchase from a licensed dealer.

The point of the exercise is to keep guns out of the hands of those who now circumvent licensed gun sales because a simple NICS check would flag them as someone society cannot risk granting gun ownership. Question 3 primarily attempts to close existing loopholes that allow bad people, or unfit individuals, from arming themselves.

Seventy-seven percent of Americans are reported to favor such “universal” background checks. A recent survey of Mainers found that 61 percent approve of the measure.

Those opposed to Question 3 do not argue against it directly but rather against feared consequences they say will unintentionally “make criminals out of responsible firearm owners” because the allowed exceptions aren’t sufficiently clear and will be “used” to prosecute everyday, just going about their own business, harming nobody, Maine gun owners.

Some opponents fear that Question 3 is an orchestrated slippery slope towards creation of a state, and eventually a national, gun registry.

Question 3 can’t take guns away from anyone. Those already owning guns will still legally or illegally own them, no constitutional rights infringed. Unfortunately, that’s also true for those that already own a gun, or several, or a vast dark arsenal to defend against all comers, and are indeed a danger to themselves, or their family, or society in general.

Question 3, however, doesn’t advocate the use of proactive restraining orders allowing the confiscation of guns from those deemed as unfit after ownership. California’s governor recently chose to veto such gray area legislation, but instead signed into law a sweeping gun control package covering that complex loophole in a far more effective manner. The most progressive of California’s new measures requires ID and background checks in the purchase of ammunition, simultaneously creating a state database of ammunition owners.

If Maine’s Question 3 is flawed law, as its critics argue, it is most flawed in that it doesn’t also target ammunition. It’s not an insignificant point that it’s indeed ammo, not guns, that actually kills people. Guns are merely the means of conveyance.

The spurious mantra that “guns don’t kill people” nevertheless resonates with many that view guns, as a delivery system for lethal harm, as no more heinous than any other chosen means of savagery. Point taken. Ultimately, it is indeed bad or disturbed people that kill good people. Point accepted. However, taking away their access to ammunition would definitely go a long way towards significantly reducing the incidents of gun ownership criminal behavior.

Given all of the above, Question 3 is still a significant step forward in trying to make sense out of protecting the freedom of responsible gun advocates while also protecting those that would end up victimized by individuals that should never have access to weapons so capable of facilitating acts of violence, whether wanton or truly senseless.

Will Question 3 stop proxy purchases of guns for illicit purposes? No. Will it identify dangerous individuals that have no previous record? No.

Will it reduce the number of weapons falling into the hands of those likely to abuse their Second Amendment rights? Yes. Will it lower the number of homicides, especially among women killed by intimate partners, and the prevalence of suicides? Yes. Will it reduce the amount of gun trafficking? Yes. Evidence from states that have implemented universal background checks show that all three were reduced by nearly 50 percent.

Gun violence in America is, as America likes to brand itself, truly “exceptional.”

The Second Amendment, to my understanding, was intended as a constitutional safeguard against possible future authoritarian oppression. It has nothing to do with allowing completely unrestricted access to personal armament because of an illogical argument of what is meant by an “unalienable” right.

Every day in America, gun violence permanently takes away the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of far, far, far too many.

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.