Question 2: Red Flag Firearm Law

The gist

This resolution would initiate the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would allow family, household members, or law enforcement to petition the courts to determine whether to issue an order prohibiting someone who they believe could pose significant danger or harm to themselves or others from possessing dangerous weapons.

Ballot question

Do you want to allow courts to temporarily prohibit a person from having dangerous weapons if law enforcement, family, or household members show that the person poses a significant danger of causing physical injury to themselves or others?

Tell me more

This question would establish a "red flag" system to allow a judge to prohibit at-risk persons, in the judge's informed reasoning, from having control of weapons that the at-risk person may use on themselves, their family, or the community. It goes further than the current "yellow flag" system which is primarily driven by communications between medical and law enforcement personnel through the use of protective custody for a mental health evaluation.[^5]

The main difference between the "yellow flag" and "red flag" is that the family would now be allowed to petition the courts for the potentially at-risk person from being prohibited to possess weapons.[^6]

Both systems were born from recognition of an established pattern of mass shootings across the United States and most especially after the Lewiston, ME shootings on October 25th, 2023. While the "yellow flag" system was already in place by the time of the Lewiston shootings, the system was strengthened shortly after.[^7]

Both systems bring up important constitutional questions regarding the second and fourth amendments. The second amendment allowing for the right to bear arms and the fourth amendment allowing for the right to due process. Protective order laws have yet to be ruled on by the Supreme Court, but generally the state and federal courts have allowed for extremely limited and temporary restrictions on control of firearms if there is a extreme risk to the individual or the community.[^8]

This question is a citizen's initiative, which is a way for Mainers to propose new laws. In order to become a valid initiative, a petition supporting the initiative must collect over 60,000 signatures.

Follow the money

The money will be used to

• $1,126,000 per year to establish 2 Judge positions, 2 Marshal positions and 2 Assistant Clerk positions to handle the increased workload expected to be generated by the extreme risk protection order process[^3]
• $76,000 for system programming updates and for temporary contracted staffing to manage the additional filings prior to electronic implementation of the process[^3]
• There may be additional costs to state, county, tribal, municipal or University of Maine System law enforcement agencies for the collection and storage of firearms[^3]
• There may also be an increased demand for state-provided counsel to represent indigent individuals[^3]

The money will be coming from

• General fund appropriations: $1,126,000 per year[^3]
• One-time general fund appropriations: $76,000[^3]
• State, county, tribal, municipal or University of Maine System law enforcement agencies, the availability of these funds is unknown.[^3]

Pros

The primary arguments for this referendum are:

• It could prevent gun violence and suicides.[^3]
• It gives people close to people who might become threats a way to do something about their concerns. Family and household members are often the first to know that someone is a threat. [^3][^4]
• Similar laws exist in 21 states and the District of Columbia.[^4]

Cons

The primary arguments against this referendum are:

• The existing "yellow flag" law requires more due process.[^4]

Who cares

Support

• Safe Schools, Safe Communities[^3]
• The Maine Gun Safety Coalition[^2]
• Alliance for Gun Responsibility[^2]
• Episcopal Diocese of Maine[^2]
• Global Impact Social Welfare Fund [^2]
• Maine Medical Association[^2]
• Responsible Gun Owners of Maine[^2]

Opposition

• The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine[^4]
• The Protect Me — No Red Flag committee[^4]
• Gun Owners of Maine[^4]
• The Keep Maine Safe committee[^4]

Further reading

• Proposed Changes to Maine Statute
• Ballotpedia article
• Portland Press Herald article

[^1]: Maine State Legislature. An Act to Authorize a General Fund Bond Issue for Research and Development and Commercialization. Accessed October 5, 2024. [^2]: Ballotpedia State Desk. Maine Question 2, Science and Technology Research and Commercialization Bond Issue (2024). Ballotpedia. Accessed October 5, 2024. [^3]: Bellows, Shenna. Maine Citizen’s Guide to the Referendum Election. Accessed October 5, 2024. [^4]: Ohm, Rachel. Question 2 asks voters to support $25 million research-and-development bond. Portland Press Herald. Accessed October 5, 2024.

[^1]: Maine State Legislature. Sec. 1. 15 MRSA §393, sub-§1, ¶E-3. Accessed [date]. [^2]: Ballotpedia State Desk. Maine Question 2, Extreme Risk Protection Orders to Restrict Firearms and Weapons Access Initiative (2025). Ballotpedia. Accessed September 26, 2025. [^3]: Bellows, Shenna. Maine Citizen's Guide to the Referendum Election. Accessed September 26, 2025. [^4]: Billings, Randy. What Maine voters need to know about upcoming referendum questions. Portland Press Herald. Accessed September 26, 2025. [^5]: Maine State Legislature. Title 34-B. §3862-A. Extreme risk protection orders. Accessed September 26, 2025. [^6]: Maine Public. Maine's 'yellow flag' law could be a model for gun control, but legal experts say it has limitations. Accessed September 26, 2025. [^7]: Maine Law Review. Cars Don’t Stop for Yellow Lights: Turning Maine’s Yellow Flag Law Red. Accessed September 26, 2025. [^8]: Duke Center for Firearms Law. Extreme Risk Protection Orders in the Post-Bruen Age. Accessed September 26, 2025.