Use of Maine's yellow flag law continues to be consistently high
Guns are shown at Caso's Gun-A-Rama in Jersey City, New Jersey, which has been open since 1967. (Photo by Aristide Economopoulos/NJ Monitor)
Maine's yellow flag law, which has been under scrutiny since the mass shooting in Lewiston, has already been used more times this year by law enforcement agencies across the state than in the first three years after it became law in 2020.
In the past six weeks, the law has been used 58 times by police departments and sheriff's offices to confiscate weapons from people with a mental health diagnosis who pose risks to their own and others' safety. That's more than the number of times law enforcement used the same law in 2020, 2021 and 2022 combined.
The use of the law skyrocketed after the deadly shooting in October 2023, and remains consistently high, although some agencies rely on it more than others, according to data from the Maine Attorney General's Office. Overall, the law, formally known as a weapons restriction order, has been used 689 times to confiscate weapons.
In the vast majority of cases, people who had guns taken away had threatened to kill themselves, often also threatening family members, partners and in some cases, coworkers or the general public, according to the state data. Most were also described as having mental health challenges, with a small number explicitly described as paranoid, schizophrenic or experiencing hallucinations. About a dozen people shot themselves before police intervened, and a dozen more hurt themselves using other weapons.
On Wednesday, Daniel Wathen, the former chief justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court who headed the independent commission that studied the Lewiston shooting, presented some of the investigation's key findings to members of the Legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. Among the conclusions, the commission determined that the Sagadahoc County Sheriff's Office had sufficient cause to take shooter Robert Card II into protective custody under Maine's Yellow Flag Law and to begin the process to confiscate any firearms in his possession.
The yellow flag law, which was crafted by Governor Janet Mills and the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, was passed in 2020, making Maine the only state with such a law. It allows law enforcement to temporarily confiscate firearms from people who are determined to be a danger to themselves or others. But it's been described as cumbersome by law enforcement, according to the commission report, because police have to take the person into protective custody, bring them to a facility where their mental health can be evaluated and then seek a court order to temporarily take firearms away.
Even though the law has been in effect since 2020, it had been used just over 80 times prior to the shooting. Since then, more than 90 law enforcement agencies have utilized it more than 600 times. Maine State Police have used it most frequently, with 61 orders since 2020.
The Sanford Police Department had the second highest number of uses. Sgt. Everett Allen said that might be because the department considers it a useful tool and has a mental health expert on staff. Androscoggin County Sheriff's Office and the Lewiston Police Department have each used the law 25 and 24 times, respectively.
'We have a mental health unit here and the ability to have that and have a clinician working with officers to help, I know that is helpful for us,' Allen said. 'Every time we've used [the yellow flag law], it's been helpful because we're removing weapons from a house or someplace that would prevent a serious likelihood of harm from someone.'
The Maine Legislature passed several gun safety laws in the wake of the shooting last year, including a bill from the governor that, among other things, modified the yellow flag law by allowing police to get protective custody warrants to use at their discretion to take dangerous people into custody and remove their weapons. That law took effect in August.
Another bill, which became law without the governor's signature, established a 72-hour waiting period for certain gun purchases. On Thursday a federal judge paused that rule in response to a lawsuit from local gun stores and owners that argued it was unconstitutional.
In a statement in response to the ruling, Nacole Palmer, executive director for the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, argued the law would help prevent suicides in Maine.
'Three-day waiting period laws provide a brief cooling off period so someone in crisis who may be buying a gun to take their own life has time to reconsider and get help,' Palmer said. 'These laws have been upheld as constitutional in countless other states where they exist, some up to 10 days. Once again, Maine is an outlier and this ruling is an exception to established law, and it's an exception that will cost lives and cause Maine families heartbreak and loss.'
The coalition is already mounting a campaign to put a stronger gun law on the ballot.
Last month, the groups delivered more than 80,000 signatures to put a red flag law, which allows family members to directly appeal to courts to take firearms away from people considered to be a danger to themselves or others, on the ballot this November.
During her state of the budget address, Mills criticized the initiative, citing the frequent use of the yellow flag law.
Mills addressed the criticisms of the current law, including the requirement of a mental health assessment to take one's guns away.
'This law is not a burden. These are folks who are in crisis and who, thanks to the mental health assessment, are also now being connected — perhaps for the first time — to Maine's mental health system,' Mills said. 'I also don't believe a private citizen should have to navigate what can be a complex and confusing court procedure by themselves, especially in the middle of already difficult circumstances. It is the government's responsibility, not that of a private citizen, to protect the public from gun violence.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US government sparks outrage with controversial decision on massive stretch of public land: 'We won't stay silent'
A sweeping environmental decision is raising major concerns about the future of America's wild spaces. The federal government is moving to roll back protections on a massive stretch of public land in Alaska, potentially opening the door to more dirty energy development in one of the country's most sensitive ecosystems. The U.S. government has announced plans to reverse a major public land safeguard, opening up 23 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) to oil drilling and mining. The move would undo a December 2023 executive order from President Joe Biden that had blocked fossil fuel development in this remote Arctic region. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the change on June 2, arguing that the earlier protections hindered energy independence, according to reporting by the Guardian. Burgum was joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, showing the administration's full-court press in favor of dirty energy expansion. But environmental groups say this shift prioritizes corporate profits over public health and natural heritage. "The Trump administration's move to roll back protections in the most ecologically important areas of the Western Arctic threatens wildlife, local communities, and our climate," Kristen Miller, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, explained in a statement. The NPR-A provides essential habitat for caribou, polar bears, and migratory birds, and it's been central to the food, culture, and way of life for Indigenous communities for generations. Opening up this much land to oil and gas drilling could add more pollution to our air and water and disrupt fragile ecosystems. The NPR-A is the largest single stretch of public land in the country and helps keep air clean, protect biodiversity, and support the cultural and economic traditions of local communities. Do you think America does a good job of protecting its natural beauty? Definitely Only in some areas No way I'm not sure Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. More fossil fuel development also adds to the heat-trapping pollution that's warming our planet and straining public health systems. We've already seen backlash to similar Arctic projects, like the Willow Project, a major drilling proposal approved in 2023, which sparked widespread opposition over its long-term risks. Conservation advocates are gearing up to fight back by preparing lawsuits, and grassroots campaigns are gaining traction. "The public fought hard for these protections," Miller said. "We won't stay silent while they're dismantled." At the local level, Utah's push to save the Great Salt Lake is showing what dedicated community action can achieve, and it's inspiring similar efforts nationwide. New York now requires all-electric new buildings, while California is phasing out gas-powered cars. These efforts cut harmful pollution and help speed the shift toward cleaner, healthier energy. You can take part by reducing home energy waste, switching to electric appliances, or choosing a clean electricity plan. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why The Planes Russia Lost In Ukraine's Drone Strike Are Such A Big Deal
Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) carried out a massive drone strike against Russia's military on June 1, specifically targeting the invading power's so-called strategic aircraft. These are amongst the most precious assets Russia has, and their loss represents a significant blow not just to the country's pride, but it's actual combat strength. That these attack were conducted so far inside of Russian territory doesn't merely add insult to injury, it massively expands the scope of its vulnerability. Codenamed Spiderweb, the Ukrainian operation involved smuggling 150 first-person view (FPV) drones into Russia, which were then hidden within the roofs of wooden cabins. The cabins were then hauled off by cargo trucks by hired Russian drivers who had no idea they'd become accomplices in a strike against their own country. Once those trucks were parked near the target airbases [Kyiv Post], the roofs were remotely opened, allowing the drones to leap out and kamikaze themselves into the parked planes. Reports indicate that a total of 117 drones assaulted four airbases across the breadth of Russia, damaging or destroying 41 aircraft. While this operation doesn't necessarily change the immediate situation on the ground of the war, it will leave a lasting impact on Russia and, very possibly, the future of warfare. It's a pretty big deal. Read more: These Are The Cheap Cars That Consumer Reports Actually Recommends Buying There are a lot of claims flying around about what planes exactly got hit, not all of which have been verified. Thus far, it seems like the losses definitely include Tupolev Tu-95s (pictured), Tupolev Tu22Ms, and Beriev A-50s. Tu-95s (called "Bears" by NATO) are relics from the 1950s; they don't even use jets, just old-school propellers. Roughly comparable to an American B-52, it is a slow but sturdy heavy bomber. The Tu-22M (called "Backfires") is also a heavy bomber, but has the distinction of being supersonic, capable of flying over Mach 3. They are both capable of firing cruise missiles, and in fact have done so throughout the Russo-Ukrainian War. Critically, they are also nuclear-capable, making them a central part of Russia's claim to superpower status. A-50s (called "Mainstays"), meanwhile, are airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) planes, analogous to the American E-3 AWACS. These are basically flying radar stations, able to detect enemy planes at vast distances and then coordinate friendly aircraft in the ensuing battle. Without them, fighters and bombers have to rely on their own (puny) on-board radar systems. If Russia ever wants to win an air battle, it needs its A-50s. There's a saying that fighter pilots make movies, but bomber pilots make history. Strategic bombers are the planes that can deliver huge payloads into a wide area, causing immense devastation. They're how you take out, say, an entire enemy military base. They are also one leg of the so-called nuclear triad, the name of the three ways one country can nuke another: By intercontinental ballistic missile (the big ones in the silos), by submarine, or, in this case, by strat bomber. To be a major global military power, you have to have a vast fleet of strat bombers. Without them, while you still might be able to conduct smaller strikes against smaller targets, you won't be able to seriously threaten hardened installations from the air, and your nuclear strike capability is curtailed. Operation Spiderweb, therefore, hasn't simply been "another" Ukrainian attack; it has struck a direct blow to Russia's ability to project military force at significant scale. That's bad enough for Russia on its own merits. But it's actually worse than it seems. So Russia has lost some important bombers. Surely, it will just replace them, right? Well, the country has just one small problem: It can't. The Tu-95 and Tu-22M are not even in production anymore, given that they are both Cold War relics. Russia's modern(ish) strat bomber is the supersonic Tu-160 (called "Blackjack", pictured), somewhat similar to America's B-1B Lancer. The catch is that Russia hasn't actually built a Tu-160 in years, and it won't be cheap or easy to get production back up and running again. That means the planes that Ukraine destroyed weren't just blows, but permanent blows. The little country has materially weakened the bigger one, not just for this war, but for the foreseeable future. By how much? According to Ukraine, Operation Spiderweb took out a whopping 34% of Russia's entire bomber fleet. One-third. Of its entire bomber fleet. That can't be replaced. To be fair, it's not yet clear how many of these planes were merely damaged, not destroyed. Some of them will likely be repaired. Then again, there are also unconfirmed reports that Spiderweb also hit some of the precious Tu-160s. If those are also getting taken out, Russia's biggest, most expensive, most devastating planes are getting bombed back into the stone age... by cheap drones. A Tu-160 heavy bomber costs about $500 million. A first-person view (FPV) drone, like the ones Ukraine used in Spiderweb, costs somewhere around $500. FPV drones are designed to be remote piloted using VR goggles so that you can see exactly what the drone sees, unlike more conventional camera drones that you might watch through your phone. This gives the operator a much more detailed view of where the drone is flying, making them a good choice for racing, exploring or, well, blowing up the nuclear strike capability of a major world power. Once smuggled into Russia in wooden cabins hauled by unsuspecting Russian truck drivers, the drones were controlled remotely by Ukraine's operatives via Russia's own 4G and LTE cell phone services. Good thing those airbases had excellent reception (or bad thing, if you're Russian). As kamikaze drones strapped with explosives, all the operators had to do was fly them straight at the strat bombers' most vulnerable points, and then, boom. For what it's worth, immediately after the attack, Russia claimed that it had captured these operators. Ukrainian officials found that interesting, as they replied by saying all the operators were already safely back in their home country. Operation Spiderweb may well be looked back on as a turning point in the development of warfare. The fact that a global world power's nuclear bombers, some of the most important and expensive assets it has, can be successfully destroyed by a couple of cheap drones signals a sea-change in the balance of combat power. Generally speaking, warplanes were considered broadly safe once parked back at their airbase; that's clearly no longer the case. Countries may have to start investing in hardened aircraft shelters, which will be hugely expensive at scale; simply slapping car tires on the bombers clearly isn't enough. In other words, military aircraft are now getting even more expensive to field, while cheap drones are only getting more capable. Meanwhile, on June 4, just three days after Operation Spiderweb, Ukraine's Military Intelligence (HUR) conducted a successful cyberattack against the United Aircraft Company, the manufacturer of the Tu-160 bomber and many other Russian planes. HUR made off with 4.4 gigabytes of classified information, leaving only one thing behind: a graphic image of a Russian plane being snatched by a (presumably Ukrainian) owl. First, strike the bombers; then, strike the bomber manufacturer. All with non-conventional weaponry. Traditional views of military hardpower are being upended by the creativity and heroism of Ukraine's defenders. The future of our world may depend on how other countries, including America, adapt to these lessons. Not surprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to retaliate for Ukraine's daring attack. Indeed, on June 7, Russia launched a huge drone and missile strike across Ukraine, hitting the cities of Kyiv, Chernihiv, Lutsk, and others. On June 9, it then launched its single largest drone attack of the entire war; critically, it targeted an airbase far from the border, thus mirroring Spiderweb in that way. Still, let's be clear: "Single largest drone attack of the entire war" means 479 drones, or just nine more than the previous record-holding strike on May 31, before Spiderweb even happened. In other words, Russia is throwing everything it has at Ukraine on a weekly basis anyway; at least so far, its "retaliations" have been just another day at the office. Putin's war has been so brutal that there may not be much more he can really do. In the meantime, the ground war grinds on. Peace talks between the two sides in Istanbul continue, so far without much to show for it. The question for Putin is how much of a price he's willing to pay to keep the war going, in exchange for what gains. Spiderweb changes that calculus dramatically. Whether a dictator cares remains to be seen. Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox... Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why the wrong memorial will water down the Holocaust
On Wednesday, the Holocaust Memorial Bill returns to the House of Lords. What a waste of energy over seven and more years this project has been. The motives are good. Unfortunately, the idea is not. In the great battle against growing anti-Semitism in our society, precious weapons are being mistargeted. There are strong second-order objections to the memorial and its accompanying 'learning centre'. They include the vast cost, over £200 million; the lack of room in Victoria Tower Gardens and the loss of green space; the security risk at the heart of government and Parliament which the police and parliamentary authorities increasingly fail to control; and the fact that the gardens will soon be overcrowded by the overspill for the coming 30-year project to restore the fabric of the Houses of Parliament next door. There will be parliamentary amendments tomorrow to address these last two points. Most of the Bill's opponents, many of whom are Jewish, do want a memorial, but a much smaller and more beautiful one. The present design is a grandiose hand-me-down, by the somewhat discredited architect David Adjaye, already used elsewhere. Opponents also do not want the learning centre. Tristram Hunt, the distinguished director of the V&A, thinks it could be much better managed at the Imperial War Museum. The key objection relates to what is really being commemorated. If you track the history of Holocaust Memorial Day since it was instituted a quarter of a century ago, you will find increasing pressure to water down the concept. There have been several occasions – ITV's Good Morning Britain this year, for example – in which coverage has entirely failed to mention the Jews at all, let alone the fact that the Holocaust killed six million of them. People such as the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, unfailingly hostile to Israel and previously friendly to murderous Hamas, have thus found it possible to take part in Holocaust Memorial Day without having to confront the grim truth of history. Over time, the uniqueness of the Jewish experience thus slips away. A process begins in which the word 'Holocaust' is taken to stand for any persecution of any group by any other group. From there, it is a short step to suggesting, as pro-Gaza mobs always do, that Israel itself is committing genocide against Palestinians. This is not an isolated outbreak of a few fanatics, but a deliberate plan to strip the Jewish state – and all Jews – of their moral authority. The ultimate aim is to preach the equation 'Jews = Israel = Nazis'. This libel is so widespread as to have become one of the main tropes of anti-Semitism. The danger is that the wrong sort of commemoration will facilitate this. Delegations from anti-Israel countries and 'humanitarian' organisations emerging from Parliament will stroll into Victoria Tower Gardens, pose outside the Holocaust Memorial and deliver their piece to camera about alleged war crimes, starvation of children etc. You can just imagine the ineffable Greta Thunberg doing exactly that. Sad to say, both main political parties are putting on whips to get the memorial Bill through Parliament. This suggests an underlying uncertainty about the rightness of their cause. Traditionally, votes on matters of conscience are not whipped. Surely Holocaust commemoration is a classic conscience issue in which party considerations have no place. I fear that establishment politicians, frightened of being labelled anti-Semitic, have supported this great big project without thinking about it. Yet thought is exactly what is needed to correct the errors of Holocaust education today. By the way, there exists a splendid role model for commemoration in, of all places, Poland. The POLIN museum in Warsaw movingly and expertly relates its country's part of the full story we all need to know – how Jews lived there for a thousand years and how, in the end, and most horribly, they died. Like many parishes, our village held its annual fete last Saturday. The problem, in advance, was the weather. Nowadays, weather forecasting is so much more accurate that if it says, two or three days before, that it will rain, it probably will. So event-planners must take it seriously. This avoids the occasional spectacular washouts of the past, after which everyone used to say, through gritted teeth, 'Rain failed to dampen the spirits'. Our organisers therefore did the prudent thing and announced that the fete would not be held in the public garden by the church but in the village's two interconnected halls. The trouble was that, on the day, there was virtually no rain during the fete's opening hours. We all felt slightly silly because we could have stuck with the original plan and saved ourselves a lot of trouble. Should we have followed the old way and just held the thing outdoors, rain or shine? I am not sure of the answer. But I do know that everyone enjoyed the make-do atmosphere among the crowded stalls and the noisy Punch-and-Judy show inside, finding community in adversity. Business was brisk. The splash headline in our local paper says, 'Post office to remain open'. My first reaction was to laugh at this non-news. After all, it is in the nature of shops to open. But I quickly realised I was wrong. It was indeed news. The unspoken policy of the modern Post Office is to close itself down. A decision in the opposite direction certainly deserves the front page. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
