Use of Maine's Current Law Highlights Need for Real ERPO Law

New statistics released from the Department of Public Safety showing an increased use of Maine’s current ‘yellow flag’ law underscore the need for an Extreme Risk Protection Order law as proposed in Question 2, which will appear on the ballot this November.

“The growing use of Maine's current law only highlights the need for a smarter, more efficient, and safer tool for families to use when a loved one is in crisis,” said James Stretch, campaign manager for the Yes on Question 2 campaign. “We're glad it's been used more in the last few years, but the bottom line is that Maine's current law existed and failed to prevent the tragedy in Lewiston despite multiple warnings by the shooter's family that he was dangerous.”

Extreme Risk Protection Orders empower families to go directly to a court when a loved one is in crisis and, if deemed dangerous, a court can temporarily limit their access to firearms. Law enforcement can still initiate the process, and if Maine had a real Extreme Risk Protection Order law in place, perhaps one of the many warnings about the Lewiston shooter could have prevented the shooting.

Instead, Maine’s watered-down law disempowers family members and requires law enforcement to first arrest someone and force them to undergo a mental health evaluation. The Maine Association of Psychiatric Physicians has endorsed Yes on Question 2.

Claims that ERPOs don’t have the same due process protections are false and misleading. When the Maine Supreme Court upheld Maine’s current law, finding it protected due process, the court found that the requirements that a subject of a protection order request be notified within 24 hours and that a hearing must be scheduled within 14 days and the person be represented by a lawyer upheld due process—both of those due process provisions are included verbatim in the language of Question 2.