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
Ed Googins is the retired South Portland Police Chief.
When we passed our “yellow flag” law, I thought, at least it’s something. I was in my 24th year as South Portland Police Chief — my 48th year in law enforcement — and I had long been involved in advocating for an extreme risk protection order law. We knew these laws worked for law enforcement in other states, and had been proven effective.
Not enough Maine lawmakers were willing to stand up for what I considered common-sense gun safety legislation, and so our yellow flag law was born. It was not as good as a true extreme risk protection order (ERPO) law would have been. Still, it was better than nothing.
But better than nothing is no longer good enough. We owe it to Maine families — and, two years after Lewiston, to all our communities — to admit we came up short with our current law from my perspective and to pass a proven tool to protect Maine’s schools and communities. Next week, I plan on voting “yes” on Question 2. It is long overdue.
Question 2 would create a real extreme risk protection order (ERPO) law, which empowers families to go directly to a court when a loved one is in crisis and, if a court finds them dangerous, temporarily limit their access to firearms. It allows law enforcement to go directly to a court, as well.
The yellow flag law was crafted to follow the involuntary commitment process officers are frequently involved in but unfortunately I saw glaring problems. First, emergency mental health professionals had serious concerns about their involvement. Second, it was obvious to me it would be a cumbersome process that would take a significant amount of time and have a detrimental impact on police resources, especially on smaller agencies.
The rocky implementation of this law is now well known. I was there every step. So when I hear gun industry lobbyists and politicians call our law the “gold standard” or a “national model,” it’s all talk after the fact to color the process. The truth is the yellow flag law wasn’t developed as a model, it was developed to get something instead of nothing. It’s not a gold standard, it was a silver medal.
Every other state with ERPOs allows law enforcement to go directly to a court and ask a judge to remove someone’s weapons. Our state does not, without protective custody and a forced mental health evaluation. This could be useful in certain situations, but not allowing law enforcement to disarm someone they know is dangerous until they take the person into custody puts law enforcement at risk. I believe Question 2 would be safer for law enforcement, because it would give them another tool and a way to disarm a dangerous subject before making contact.
More glaringly, our current law, unlike ERPO laws elsewhere, completely disempowers family members. They have no way to take direct action when a loved one is in crisis. It troubled me then and still troubles me now that families cannot get help without police involvement.
People are smart. People are also proud — they often don’t want to talk about these situations and don’t want to involve the police. I spent 48 years in law enforcement, I’ve seen it. Refusing to acknowledge that reality and condescendingly arguing that Maine families shouldn’t “have to navigate” another life-saving tool is stubborn and dangerous.
We saw this dangerous gap in the yellow flag law with the horrific tragedy in Lewiston. The shooter’s family warned he was dangerous, but our current law gave them no way to take direct action. Had Question 2 been in place, the family could have gone directly to a court. Law enforcement could have removed the weapons while the shooter was at work, and then confronted a disarmed suspect. Eighteen lives could have been saved.
We can’t go back and pass the law I believe we should have passed in 2019, but we can — and must — do everything we can to protect our communities from experiencing this kind of horror again.
I started police work in 1971. A few laws along the way changed law enforcement and public safety for the better. Our state’s protection from abuse domestic violence law was one. Question 2, which mirrors that law’s process, would be another. It will allow families to get the help they need and assist law enforcement in protecting our communities.
I couldn’t be a part of getting us over the finish line with this law in 2019. But I — and you — can be a part of it now. Together we can help save lives and protect our communities. Vote “yes” on Question 2.
