A column in Saturday’s Press Herald by David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, uses a contrived example of a friend borrowing a small-caliber gun so his son can shoot a turkey in an effort to brand the background check referendum this fall as “overregulation of the purest kind.”

To be sure, if a person wants to loan a gun to a non-relative to use outside his presence, a background check would be required, just as with a private sale. And for good reason. A gun in the hands of a person who should not have it is just as dangerous, be it bought or borrowed.

The idea is to close the existing loopholes for private, Internet, classified ad and gun show sales (and lending) of firearms and to make sure that buyers and borrowers are legally permitted to possess guns.

That being said, the law does contain common-sense exceptions for sales and loans among extended family members and for loaning a firearm to another member of a hunting party. These exceptions will cover the great majority of situations in which there is little danger of a gun ending up in the wrong hands and where background checks would be unduly burdensome or not feasible.

By now it is clear that a majority of Maine people, and a majority of Maine gun owners, want our state to join the 14 states (including all of the other New England states) that require background checks on most transactions that place guns in the possession of persons not within the owner’s family. We hope that between now and November, the current leadership of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine will see the wisdom in this reform and will urge its members to vote “yes” on the background check referendum.