After weeks of insisting that no public hearing was necessary for a proposed “red flag” law that will be on the ballot this November (despite the clear letter of state law), Maine Democrats caved to pressure this week and hastily scheduled a hearing for Wednesday with the public given little more than 24 hours notice. If the anti-gun senators were hoping to catch gun owners and opponents of the ballot measure flat-footed, they were denied their wish by a packed house of residents and officials ready to argue that the proposal, if adopted, will take the state in the wrong direction.
The public hearing on Wednesday afternoon was in the Judiciary Committee with supporters and opponents filling even spillover rooms at the State House.
The Red Flag law, proposed through a citizen’s initiative, would allow family members of gun owners to go to a judge directly to receive a court order to temporarily restrict somebody’s gun access.
Supporters began the hearing citing incidents in which lives, they say, could have been saved if this had been law. As well as saying while the current Yellow Flag law is effective, there are issues with it only applying to hose who have failed a mental health assessment.
“I have treated patients that have suffered immeasurable tragic loss, much of which may have been avoided if common sense laws like E.R.P.O. had prevailed,” said Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine Dr. John Brewer. “Right now, suicide-by-firearm for pre-teens and teens is at an all time high, especially for young males.”
What on earth leads Brewer to believe a “red flag” law would prevent those tragedies? These teens and pre-teens that he’s talking about aren’t old enough to legally purchase or possess a firearm, so any ERPO petition would be filed against their parents… who would presumably be the ones in the best position to identify that their kid is troubled. Why would they “red flag” themselves instead of voluntarily taking steps to temporarily remove any firearms from their home; or, better yet, get their child the help they need?
Besides, Maine’s “yellow flag” law is already capable of addressing those situations. Every subject of a “yellow flag” petition undergoes a mental health evaluation, and suicidal ideation would be cause to issue a “yellow flag” order that would not only temporarily remove guns from the home, but ensure that they receive mental health treatment.
Opponents of the red flag law, which included the office of Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, argued that the existing yellow flag law is working and that changes are unnecessary. Opponents also argued that the red flag proposal would infringe on Second Amendment rights.
“The bottom line is that our law is working,” Mills’ chief counsel, Jerry Reid, said in written testimony submitted to lawmakers on behalf of the governor’s office. “In fact, it is working far more effectively than so-called red flag laws in some other states where such laws are very rarely used.”
…
Reid also noted that lawmakers last year approved updates, including clarifying that law enforcement can seek a warrant signed by a judge, in unusual circumstances, to take a person into protective custody to do the required mental health evaluation.
He said the requirement for the mental health evaluation is reasonable, and also addressed the argument by supporters of the red flag law that family and household members should have an avenue to appeal directly to a judge, without going to law enforcement, for weapons’ removal.
“It is the responsibility of law enforcement, not that of a private citizen, to protect the public,” Reid wrote. “Further, we do not believe a private citizen should be expected to navigate what can be a complex and confusing court procedure by themselves, especially in the middle of already difficult circumstances.”
As I’ve said before, I have some issues with the “yellow flag” law as well, but at least it offers more due process protections than the “red flag” law that will be on the ballot in November, which has no mental health evaluation at all. Instead, under the Extreme Risk Protection Order proposal, it up to a judge to determine if someone is a danger to themselves or others. Once that determination has been made any legally owned guns are removed from their residence, but the supposedly dangerous person is left with access to knives, pills, gasoline and matches, and virtually anything else they might use to hurt themselves, their family, or strangers.
David Moltz, representing the Maine Association of Psychiatric Physicians, said the yellow flag law has been effective but has “significant deficiencies,” including that it requires a mental health evaluation.
Moltz said a red flag law would avoid stigmatizing people with mental illness, and it would ensure that firearms could also be removed from people who are dangerous but are not found to have mental illness.
No offense to Moltz, but if he thinks there’ll somehow be less stigma attached to being the subject of a “red flag” order he’s delusional. And it’s downright frightening to me that a psychiatrist believes that a judge is better at evaluating someone’s propensity for harming themselves or others than a mental health professional.
What about the notion that someone might be dangerous but not mentally ill? Well, since the “yellow flag” law requires the police, not family members or third parties, to file the petition, the subject of a petition would already be on law enforcement’s radar. That would make it easier for authorities to detain someone if there’s evidence that the individual is planning on committing a mass shooting or another act of violence. Under a “red flag” law, the individual might not be on the radar of police until it’s too late to do anything.
David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, a group that advocates on behalf of gun owners and sportsmen, said the existing yellow flag law is “far superior” to the red flag proposal.
“It’s designed to help people who may be suffering from a mental health crisis at the lowest point in their lives, in a compassionate manner,” Trahan said. “It gets them help, addresses the underlying cause and directs them to further treatment and services, if needed.”
Lt. Michael Johnston of the Maine State Police also testified against the red flag law, saying that in addition to the yellow flag law already working well, the red flag law could be dangerous for law enforcement because they would be tasked with having to remove a person’s weapons without having had the prior contact of taking the person into custody and ensuring they undergo a mental health evaluation.
“Service of these orders will be extremely high risk,” Johnston said. “Under the yellow flag law, we have the opportunity to serve the person in the confines of a hospital and then work with family members on the relinquishment of firearms. Under this proposed bill, we would be going to that residence and serving the order and taking the weapons after a finding of dangerousness.”
With opposition coming not just from Second Amendment advocates but the governor’s office and the state police (among others), it’s no wonder Democrats went to such great lengths to prevent a public hearing from taking place.
Thanks to pressure from the National Rifle Association, Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, Gun Owners of Maine, Republican lawmakers, and even some proponents of the “red flag” initiative who objected to ignoring state law to aid its passage, Senate Democrats were forced to fold. Now that this particular fight is over, it’s time to educate those voters not in attendance in Augusta on Wednesday about the dangers of the “red flag” proposal, and why it should be rejected when they head to the polls in just a few months.
Read the full article here
