There has never been an initiative that seems to have created such disagreement as Question 3 – the gun registration provision for private sales and transfers.

I’ve given this proposal considerable thought, and decided I cannot endorse this initiative.

Let me preface my comments by saying I am not a hunter, recreational shooter or avid gun owner. I do not shoot for recreation or for sport; I am a career law enforcement officer who uses a firearm as a necessary part of my profession.

There is a lot of emotion surrounding this initiative.

Nobody wants a criminal or a person suffering from a dangerous mental illness to have a firearm, and everybody wants to stop all gun violence.

Currently, there is a “universal” background check in place for customers who purchase a gun from a store or licensed dealer. No checks are required for private sales by unlicensed persons, and this initiative is supposed to “close the loophole” for such sales.

If that were all it did, there would not be much debate.

However, this initiative goes much further than just regulating actual sales and restricts almost all loans, gifts and other temporary changes in possession of a gun, like lending a weapon to a friend, changing what is generally understood to be the definition of “transfer.”

This initiative is an unenforceable “feel-good” measure. Criminals will still get guns the old-fashioned way: through straw purchases and theft. I believe this initiative, if passed, will do nothing to put an end to those illegal actions. What it will do is make criminals out of typical, law-abiding citizens.

Supporters of Question 3 should realize that this initiative may have unintended consequences. Gun sales may actually increase. The occasional gun user may decide to purchase one because borrowing a firearm under the proposed Question 3 process is cost-prohibitive, and an overall hassle. Buying a gun will subject the person to the same process and fees as borrowing a gun.

This legislation also appears to be a prelude to a gun registry. Our founding fathers enacted the Second Amendment, enshrining the right to have weapons for self-defense and as protection against an oppressive government. As elected law enforcement officials, sheriffs are the line of defense for citizens’ rights against the federal government.

Think about it – marijuana possession is still a federal crime. Every Mainer who legally possesses medical marijuana is in violation of federal law. If the feds come for you, your county sheriff is tasked with protecting your rights.

I took my oath seriously, and am prepared to protect your rights – consequently, after careful review of this overreaching initiative question, I join 11 other Maine sheriffs and urge you not to support Question 3.

Let’s get some sensible legislation to address the issue of gun violence and not make criminals out of our fellow law-abiding community members.

Bill King is sheriff for York County.