The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Janet Mills is the governor of Maine. This column is adapted from her weekly radio address.
A 21-year-old woman threatens to kill herself with a gun. A 37-year-old man threatens to kill his ex-girlfriend’s boyfriend and himself and any responding police officers. Well, these are just a couple of real-life examples of the more than 1,100 times that Maine’s extreme risk protection order law has been used to remove weapons and protect individuals and the public. But this successful law is at risk from a question on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Question 2, the so-called red flag measure, has been billed as strengthening gun safety measures. But, in reality, it will undermine the safety of the public, and here’s why.
Look, in my first year in office, we brought together law enforcement, behavioral health people and advocates from all sides to draft a powerful measure that allows a court to order the removal of dangerous weapons from someone who poses a risk to themselves or others, and it got a widely bipartisan vote in the Maine Legislature. So, look, our law is not some cookie-cutter measure copied and pasted from another state. It was written by and for Maine people, carefully crafted to include important due process safeguards that protect both the public safety and the rights of the individual.
Now, police are using that law at a rate far more than once a day, and far exceeding the use of other so-called red flag laws in other states. That’s because police are accustomed to the law and they understand their obligations to use it, especially after the tragedy in Lewiston and the conclusion of the independent commission that investigated the shooting that the law could have and should have been used to prevent it.
So how does it work?
Suppose someone you know is talking about suicide, or your neighbor is threatening people, or a cousin borrowed your gun but is acting strange. Well, you call the police and you report it. The police investigate and take the person into protective custody, and have the person speak to a mental health professional.
The police then take all the information they have from whatever source, and request that a judge order the person to give up their weapons. Simple as that. But Question 2 would create a new, separate and confusing process that will undermine the effectiveness of the law and endanger public safety along with it.
So how are the two different?
Our current law requires police to initiate the process to remove weapons based on all the information available to them, while Question 2 would allow a family or household member to initiate it on their own without further investigation.
Well, on its face, I guess I understand why that seems appealing. Why not provide another avenue to remove a weapon?
Well, first, because involving law enforcement, as our law does, takes the burden off you as a family member for turning someone in who is close to you. Question 2, on the other hand, as a practical matter, would shift the responsibility of pursuing a court order on your shoulders and put you on the front lines of a dangerous situation, which risks your safety.
Second, law enforcement have access to much more information, and they know the court system, so they can navigate it more easily and successfully remove weapons. Question 2 would have civilians navigate that system on their own. I don’t want to see anyone walk away from the process because they’re overwhelmed, or can’t figure it out, or feel intimidated. That just means that weapons might remain in the hands of dangerous people.
Third, involving law enforcement provides another important level of due process, and that strengthens the current law’s constitutionality. Question 2 would lower that legal standard and diminish the protective buffer of the police, which puts the law at much greater risk of being struck down.
Here’s the bottom line for me — and I say this as someone with decades of experience as a former private attorney, a district attorney, attorney general and now as governor — if there is a potentially dangerous situation, I want the police involved as soon as possible because it’s their responsibility, not yours, to deal with dangerous people.
Look, if I thought Question 2 were good public policy, I’d be the first to support it. But Maine’s current gun safety law is one of the most effective laws of its kind in the nation, carefully drafted to be constitutional. It has resulted in more than 1,100 court orders to remove weapons, far more compared with most other states that have so-called red flag laws.
Our Maine law is successfully saving lives every day, and that’s why I ask people to reject Question 2 at the ballot box on Nov. 4.
