By Gov. Janet Mills

Copyright centralmaine

Janet Mills is governor of Maine.

A 21-year-old woman threatens to kill herself with a firearm. A 37-year-old man threatens to kill his ex-girlfriend’s boyfriend, himself, and any responding officers. These are just a couple examples of the 1,100 times Maine’s Extreme Risk Protection Order law has been used to remove weapons and protect individuals and the public. Our law has been preventing suicide, getting people help and saving lives every day.

But this successful law is at risk from a referendum question on the Nov. 4 ballot. Question 2, the so-called red flag measure, has been billed as strengthening gun safety measures. In reality, it will undermine the safety of the public.

Let me explain.

In my first year in office, we brought together law enforcement, behavioral health professionals 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.

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 public safety and the rights of the individual. It won a unanimous vote in the Maine State Senate and a nearly unanimous, equally bipartisan, vote in the Maine House — something unheard of when it comes to gun safety legislation. We found common ground on one of the most controversial issues of our time.

Now, police are using the law at a rate of more than once a day, far exceeding the use of other so-called “red flag” laws in other states. That’s because law enforcement is accustomed to the law and understand their obligation to use it, especially after the tragedy in Lewiston and the Independent Commission’s conclusion that the law could have and should have been used to prevent it.

Let’s talk about how the law works. Suppose someone you know is talking about suicide. Or your neighbor is threatening someone. Or a cousin borrowed your gun but is acting strange. You call the police and report this. The police investigate, take the person into what’s called protective custody and have the person speak to a mental health professional. The police then take all the information they have from whatever sources and request a judge order that the person give up their weapons.

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 law requires police to initiate the process to remove weapons, based on a variety of sources of information, while Question 2 would allow “a family or household member” to initiate it on their own, without further investigation. On its face, I can understand why that’s appealing — why not provide another avenue to remove a weapon?

But our measure gets law enforcement involved early for good reason.

First, involving law enforcement takes the burden off you as a family member for “turning in” someone who’s close to you. We don’t want you in the middle of a potentially dangerous situation. Question 2, on the other hand, would do exactly that, putting the burden of pursuing an order on your shoulders and putting you on the front line of a dangerous situation, which risks your safety.

Second, law enforcement can access more information and they know the court system, which means they can navigate it more easily and successfully remove weapons. Question 2 would ask you to try to navigate that system on your own. That’s a complicated, confusing and intimidating thing to have to do by yourself. And I don’t want to see anyone walk away from the process because they’re overwhelmed, can’t figure it out or feel intimidated. That just means weapons might remain in the hands of dangerous people.

Third, involving law enforcement provides another important level of due process that strengthens the law’s constitutionality. Question 2 would lower that legal standard and diminish the protective buffer of the police, which puts the law at greater risk of being struck down.

As a constitutional matter, Question 2 is suspect. As a practical matter, it is confusing, incompatible with our current law and puts both police and civilians in greater danger. Here’s the bottom line for me, and I say this as someone with decades of experience as a former private attorney, 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 was good public policy, I would 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. It has resulted in 1,100 court orders to remove weapons, far more compared to most other New England states that have red flag laws over the same period.

Our law is saving lives every day. Let’s not risk that.