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
Ted Short is a retired state, local and federal law enforcement officer.
I served Maine as a law enforcement officer for 45 years. First as a police officer in Fairfield. Then, 22 years with the Maine State Police, retiring as a troop commander. After the State Police, I went to work as the police chief of Eliot and then Kittery for 12 years. Finally, I was appointed United States Marshal for the District of Maine, where I served for four years.
I know something about law enforcement. And this election, I’m voting “yes” on Question 2.
I’m also a Republican, a gun owner, and a hunter. That’s not usually the first way I introduce myself at a party, but I think it’s worth saying upfront here because I’m tired of seeing this issue get so polarized. It’s not about politics. It’s about common sense and saving lives, and it’s about finally responding to the growing problem of gun deaths with the urgency this problem demands.
When I saw my longtime colleague and friend Anne Jordan, who oversaw the Lewiston Commission and served our state as commissioner of public safety, endorse Question 2, I thought it’s about time more voices in public safety and law enforcement speak up for common sense.
I believe Question 2 will help keep our communities safer by adding another tool for both families and law enforcement. Why wouldn’t we want another tool? Why wouldn’t we continue to find ways to make our communities and our jobs safer?
From my experience, family members are often the first to see the warning signs if someone is in crisis. But under Maine’s current law, called the “yellow flag” law, families have no tools to take direct action. All they can do is call law enforcement. In Lewiston, our law failed to prevent the tragedy despite multiple warnings by the would-be shooter’s family. It gave them no other options.
Question 2 would change that by creating a real extreme risk protection order law, which empowers families to go directly to a court when someone is in crisis and, if a court finds them dangerous, temporarily restricts their access to firearms. It’s a proven tool that’s been used across the country to disarm people who threatened mass shootings, including school shootings, as well as reduce suicide.
It’s a proven approach that adds an additional option for families who need help, and it follows almost the exact same process for our state’s protection from domestic abuse law. In those cases, a domestic violence victim who may not want to go to the police can go directly to a court and present their case. Question 2 mirrors that law, which has worked effectively for decades.
Question 2 would also allow law enforcement to get an order without the burdensome and time-consuming custody process that the yellow flag law requires. This is a valuable alternative to our current law, which gives people a false sense of safety by incorrectly treating mental health as the precursor for violence. I was a negotiator for years with the State Police. I’d often deal with people in crisis for a matter of hours, and then when we’d take them in for an evaluation they were found to be “fine,” because a moment of crisis is just that — not necessarily mental illness.
The bottom line for me is that our current law puts the wrong professionals in the wrong roles. Our job as law enforcement is to protect the public. A judge’s job is to determine if someone has a risk of danger. Mental health professionals’ job is to treat someone after the immediate threat is over. I believe Question 2 recognizes that, and makes the process more common sense, straightforward, and efficient.
If there are officers who still prefer the yellow flag law, Question 2 does not repeal it, and claims that Question 2 undoes the current process are simply false. The yellow flag law didn’t create protective custody — that was always an option for law enforcement, and will continue to be. Instead, I think Question 2 will be safer for law enforcement than the current law, because with such extreme risk protection orders law enforcement are able to gather all the information through the court process, such as the type of crisis and how many weapons are present, as opposed to the current law or a domestic violence situation where you don’t always know what you’re responding to. To me, it’s ultimately a safer situation because it’s a known situation.
At the end of the day, we took this job to protect people. That’s our responsibility. Question 2 enhances law enforcement’s ability to protect people by empowering family members and giving us more tools to keep our communities safe while maintaining Mainers’ rights.
That’s why this 45-year law enforcement officer, Republican, gun owner, and hunter plans on voting “yes” on Question 2.
Election notice: The BDN will stop accepting letters and columns related to the Nov. 4 election on Wednesday, Oct. 29. Not all submissions can be published.
