logo
Advocates make case for red flag ballot measure in last-minute legislative hearing

Advocates make case for red flag ballot measure in last-minute legislative hearing

Yahooa day ago

Nacole Palmer (right), executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, sits with Arthur Barnard (center), who held a picture of his son, Lewiston shooting victim Arthur Strout, during a public hearing before the Maine Legislature's Judiciary Committee for a red flag citizen's initiative on June 11, 2025. (Photo by Eesha Pendharkar/ Maine Morning Star)
Dozens of people gathered at the State House Wednesday to discuss stricter gun safety regulations that Mainers will be voting on this November.
After a failed legislative attempt last year to implement a so-called 'red flag law' — which would allow courts to temporarily take guns away from people perceived as a threat by law enforcement or their family members — a citizen-led initiative collected more than 80,000 signatures to put a referendum question on the ballot for this year.
But before the question goes to voters in November, the Legislature is required to hold a public hearing for the referendum: LD 1378. Wednesday's meeting came after Republicans repeatedly questioned why a public hearing was never scheduled for the proposal.
After pleas from Republicans, last-minute hearing scheduled for red flag initiative
Red flag laws, formally known as extreme risk protection orders, are active in twenty-one states, including four states in New England. Maine is the only state with a yellow flag law.
The referendum proposes allowing a family member, household member or law enforcement officer to file a petition, along with an affidavit of facts, for an extreme risk protection order if someone is suspected of posing a significant danger of causing physical injury to themself or another person. That protection order would prohibit the person from purchasing, possessing or controlling a 'dangerous weapon.'
A court would be required to schedule a hearing within 14 days of when the petition is filed. If the court finds the individual does pose a significant risk of causing physical injury, the court must issue an order prohibiting them from purchasing, possessing or receiving a dangerous weapon for up to one year. The person would need to immediately surrender any dangerous weapons in their possession to law enforcement.
A person could request to have the order terminated if they can show evidence that they no longer pose a risk of physical harm. Conversely, an order can also be renewed for up to one additional year.
At the hearing, about 30 speakers highlighted flaws in Maine's current 'yellow flag law,' which allows law enforcement to take guns away from people after a mental health evaluation. Family members of people who died in the October 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston as well as doctors, psychiatrists and school teachers all pointed to issues with the yellow flag law, arguing that stricter regulations could have helped prevent the shooting.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'I get regular calls from people who are desperate for help when a loved one or others are in crisis, who are dangerous and harmful firearms that are not getting help from the police. I have to explain to them that there's nothing that I can do as an individual on this kind of advocacy,' said Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, which collected signatures for the citizen initiative.
'But there's something that we can all do together this November by passing this proven, life-saving law that empowers family members and will help keep our schools and communities safe,' she added.
Mental health professionals and doctors from several national organizations said the current law's required mental health evaluation weakens it.
'Ultimately, family members know their loved ones best. They are first to notice when something is wrong and when someone they love is wrong,' said Madeleine DesFosses, speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Maine Medical Association. 'We need to ensure that an efficient process is available, and that makes it easier to get dangerous weapons away from someone.'
Critics of the bill included members of law enforcement, who said the yellow flag law is working well and that allowing courts to directly take away weapons makes enforcement of the red flag law more dangerous for law enforcement officers who have to confiscate them. Some opponents also argued that it's unconstitutional and lacks due process.
If the referendum passes, it would not replace Maine's current law, but would be an additional tool police or the general public can use to temporarily confiscate weapons. But Lt. Michael Johnston of the Maine State Police argued that having two different avenues is unnecessary, since the current system is working well, as evidenced by the increase in frequency of use.
Maine medical community backs proposed red flag law
'I think this is going to be a heightened risk of service for law enforcement and for the respondent,' Johnston said, testifying in opposition to the referendum. 'You get diminished returns if you have similar processes in place, people aren't sure which ones to take advantage of.'
The public hearing included lengthy discussion on the effectiveness and barriers of the current law. Since the Lewiston shooting, the use of the yellow flag law has skyrocketed. Law enforcement used it more times in the first two months of this year than the first three years after its passing in 2020. So far, there have been 881 total applications, 800 of which were after the October 2023 shooting, according to Maine State Police. Johnston said he is only aware of two times that state police were unsuccessful in temporarily confiscating weapons under the yellow flag law rules.
But that use remains high because the yellow flag law 'failed so spectacularly that 18 Mainers were slaughtered,' Palmer said. 'And the people of Maine, including our law enforcement, are so desperate to make sure that kind of thing doesn't happen again.'
Johnston said 'Lewiston was a wake up call for everyone,' and that law enforcement is already focused on better training and implementation of the yellow flag law. Adding another tool that doesn't work as well to the tool chest, he said, 'can detract or diminish from what's already working.'
Similar legislation was introduced last session, but it died without a vote in the full Senate or House of Representatives.
That bill was sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland), who at the time was speaker of the House. A lengthy budget debate on the last day of the session upended plans for the chambers to take it up.
At the time, the measure was particularly popular among Maine's medical community which praised the proposal for its efforts to address the public health crisis of gun violence without stigmatizing mental illness.
Like last year's proposal, the red flag bill heard Wednesday is up against the legislative clock. Though lawmakers are no longer beholden to the statutory adjournment date of June 18, given that they are technically in a special session, leaders have indicated they intend to stick with that deadline.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Maine Senate rejects effort to ban trans girls from sports
Maine Senate rejects effort to ban trans girls from sports

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Maine Senate rejects effort to ban trans girls from sports

Alice Frost, who identifies as transgender, speaks to a reporter after a rally in Cumberland, Maine on Sunday, March 23, 2025, calling on Maine lawmakers, and local MSAD51 school officials, to support transgender student athletes. (Photo by Troy R. Bennett/ Maine Morning Star) Despite pressure from the Trump administration to repeal protections for transgender student athletes, lawmakers in the Maine Senate late Thursday rejected legislation that would restrict transgender students' access to school sports and bathrooms. The majority of the chamber also shot down an effort to roll back state law that establishes a process for someone at least 16 years old to access gender-affirming health care. The bills — LD 1134 and LD 380 — mark the first of several targeting transgender rights that will go before lawmakers in the Senate and Maine House of Representatives in the coming days. LD 1134 would specifically ban transgender girls from playing girls sports or using girls bathrooms or locker rooms. It is one of three similar proposals this session that require trans students to adhere to sports and facilities that align with the sex assigned at birth. The Senate voted 21-14 in support of a motion to reject the measure, with Sen. Rick Bennett of (R-Oxford) joining Democrats against the bill. In a speech on the Senate floor, Bennett commended the students who spoke up on 'every side of the issue.' Transgender teens and allies crowd State House to fight anti-trans bills 'These are Maine kids and they deserve to grow up in a state where they are safe, respected and seen,' he said. Referring to those who say the bill seeks to put the state in compliance with federal anti-discrimination protections, he said those questions are 'already being addressed in courts where they belong. What we are being asked today is something different: deciding if our laws will affirm the dignity of every child in Maine, or diminish it.' Many of the bill's critics focused on what they said were inherent biological differences between males and females and the superior athleticism of males. Bill sponsor Sen. Sue Bernard (R-Aroostook) told her colleagues she meant no disrespect to the trans community with the bill. 'I'm merely recognizing biological strengths and differences that exist,' she said. 'It's also what's inherently fair and unfair about requiring girls to compete against trans athletes. There's nothing new about leveling the playing field in sports.' Sen. Mike Tipping (D-Penobscot), however, pointed out that trans women and girls have been competing alongside cisgender girls in sports in Maine for decades without much fanfare. 'This is nothing new,' he said. 'What is new is the outsized and disproportionate focus on their lives, especially on what trans kids get to do at school.' He continued, 'Banning a group of kids from playing sports alongside their classmates simply because of who they are is not about ensuring fairness. It's about drawing a line of exclusion. And for trans youth, who already face significantly higher rates of bullying, depression and suicide, being told they don't belong will have serious consequences for their health and their well being.' The Senate also voted 21-14 against LD 380, which would no longer allow minors that are at least 16 years old to consent to gender-affirming care, which can include a wide range of services, including hormone therapy and counseling. Debate centers on fairness and safety during hearing on transgender sports bills Sen. David Haggan (R-Penobscot), who sponsored the legislation, said parents should know what children are doing, 'in all facets of life,' until they are 18 years old. Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland) said the current law was passed after 'exhaustive study and debate in the 131st Legislature. There's no reason to change.' Hundreds of people attended the May public hearing on the slate of anti-trans bills, the vast majority of whom were there in support of trans students. Citing national attacks on trans rights, students, parents of trans youth, faith leaders, educators and other community members testified against the proposals. In 2021, the Maine Human Rights Act was amended to include gender identity as a protected class against discrimination. But that policy has been the subject of debate and scrutiny since President Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal funding unless Maine complies with his executive order banning transgender girls from playing girls' sports. The U.S. Department of Justice is currently suing the state over what it says are violations of Title IX, which protects against discrimination in schools. Other legislation expected to appear before the House and Senate include proposals to restrict the rights of students to use affirming pronouns and broader bills attempting to remove gender identity as part of the Maine Human Rights Act. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Padilla hopes people feel 'outrage' over his forcible removal and detainment
Padilla hopes people feel 'outrage' over his forcible removal and detainment

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Padilla hopes people feel 'outrage' over his forcible removal and detainment

California Sen. Alex Padilla hopes people will feel the same outrage he felt after being forcibly removed from a news conference with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday. Video of the incident showed Padilla trying to walk up to Noem while she was speaking at a podium during the conference in Los Angeles. Padilla simultaneously attempted to shout over Noem, but law enforcement stepped in and forcefully stopped Padilla's advance. Padilla was eventually taken to the ground and handcuffed, the video showed. He gave emotional remarks afterward to reporters. In his first solo interview since his removal, Padilla told MSNBC's Jacob Soboroff that he has been doing okay but "most importantly" hopes people will understand the "outrage" behind the event. Kristi Noem Suspects 'Completely Inappropriate' Democratic Senator 'Wanted The Scene' "I think most importantly is the outrage that I hope people feel," Padilla said on "The Beat with Ari Melber." "If this can happen to a United States Senator for having the audacity to ask a question of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the same questions and requests for information that we've had, not just for the last week or so for the activity in Los Angeles, but since the beginning of the administration, then just imagine what can happen to anybody in the country, for that matter." Read On The Fox News App He insisted that there was no "lunging" towards Noem and that he only "raised [his] voice" to ask Noem a question. Padilla confirmed that he was handcuffed and detained before being released a few minutes later and offered a meeting with Noem. Padilla argued that, despite speaking with Noem, he still didn't receive the answer to his questions. "You think she might have started the meeting with an apology for what happened. Of course not," Padilla said. 'Spectacle Of Himself': Senate Republicans Blast Alex Padilla After His Forcible Removal From Dhs Presser In a statement to Fox News, the White House attacked Padilla for interrupting the press conference for what it called a "theater-kid stunt." "Padilla stormed a press conference without wearing his Senate pin or previously identifying himself to security, yelled and lunged toward Secretary Noem," White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson said. "Padilla didn't want answers; he wanted attention. Padilla embarrassed himself and his constituents with this immature, theater-kid stunt, but it's telling that Democrats are more riled up about Padilla than they are about the violent riots and assaults on law enforcement in LA."Original article source: Padilla hopes people feel 'outrage' over his forcible removal and detainment

Trump didn't want Israel to strike. They did it anyway.
Trump didn't want Israel to strike. They did it anyway.

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Trump didn't want Israel to strike. They did it anyway.

In the hours before Israeli warplanes carried out an attack on Iran early Friday, raising fresh fears of all-out war in the region, President Donald Trump made clear it was an outcome he hoped to avoid. 'I don't want them going in because, I mean, that would blow it,' he said, referring to his diplomatic efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The fact Israel went in anyway – without any US involvement, and against the president's publicly stated wishes – now thrusts Trump into one of the biggest tests of his young presidency. By his own telling, the strikes risk scuttling his attempts at diplomacy with Tehran, even as his top envoy was preparing to depart for Oman for another round of talks this weekend. It casts a pall over his already tense relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he has sharply disagreed for months and whom he urged as recently as this week to hold off on a strike. And it presents him another global conflict without any easy resolution, this one with tens of thousands of US troops potentially caught in the regional crossfire. Trump will now find himself caught between competing crosscurrents from within his own party. Many Republicans were quick to offer their support to Israel on Thursday, including Sen. Lindsey Graham – a longtime Iran hawk – who wrote on X: 'Game on.' Yet Trump has never quite adopted that strain of his party's foreign policy, particularly in his second term. His administration is stacked with officials, starting with his vice president, who take a deeply skeptical view of US military involvement abroad without express American interests on the line. Trump offered no signals in the immediate aftermath of the attacks that he was prepared to use American military assets to help defend Israel from expected Iranian reprisal, as his predecessor Joe Biden did when Israel and Iran exchanged fire last year. Without American assistance, Israel's air defenses could be unable to withstand a major Iranian onslaught. The focus of public messaging from the US administration was instead on protecting American personnel in the Middle East, and warning Iran not to drag the US into the fray. Still, for all the complicated dynamics for Trump to now sort through, the attack hardly came as a surprise to the president and his team. Even as he was speaking from the East Room on Thursday, the president and his aides were aware the strikes were likely coming soon, sources said, despite Trump's repeated attempts at urging Netanyahu to hold off. As the strikes were getting underway, Trump was appearing on the South Lawn at a congressional picnic. He returned to the West Wing afterward to huddle with top officials, according to a White House official and other sources. Afterward, a terse statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to put distance between the US and any role in the attack. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' read the statement, which was distributed by the White House. 'Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners,' Rubio continue. 'Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.' Devoid of even boilerplate language offering support for Israel and its defense, the statement made clear: this would be Israel's conflict, not Trump's.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store