Jeffrey W. Swanson, Ph.D., is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine and a faculty affiliate of the Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law. David B. Joyce, JD, DrPH, is an attorney in Portland.

In 2019, Maine enacted a “yellow flag” law to authorize temporary firearm removal from individuals in mental health crisis. It was a good-faith bipartisan compromise — an effort to balance public safety with civil liberties. But as researchers who have studied this law, we believe it’s not enough.

The tragic shooting in Lewiston exposed the law’s limitations. Now, Maine voters have a chance to approve an additional tool to prevent gun violence. Question 2 in the referendum offers a true Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) statute — a “red flag” law like those already saving lives in neighboring states.

Police can initiate the yellow flag process only for individuals already in protective custody who are found to be mentally ill and dangerous to self or others. But many people who pose an imminent risk of harm with a firearm do not fall into that category. Consider a mother who watches helplessly as her gun-owning son spirals into resentful rage, and it’s not due to mental illness.

Under Maine’s current yellow flag law, police cannot act in a situation like that, because there is no diagnosable mental illness and no crime has yet been committed. A red flag law could prevent tragedy through earlier intervention.

Requiring a diagnosable mental disorder is contrary to national data that show most people convicted of violent crimes have no history of mental illness. In Maine, they would not have been eligible for firearm removal under the yellow flag law. Question 2 fills this gap by allowing courts to consider behavioral evidence of dangerousness — regardless of psychiatric status — and act before tragedy strikes.

By tying firearm removal to mental health holds, the current law reinforces stigma by implying that violent behavior is inherently linked to psychopathology. Research shows otherwise: most people with mental illness are not violent, and most violent individuals do not have a diagnosable mental illness.

Approving Question 2 would bring Maine in line with 21 other states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands that have enacted ERPO laws. In most of these states, family or household members can petition a court directly — with police support as needed — to temporarily remove firearms from someone who poses a serious risk.

Maine’s proposed additional law does not eliminate police involvement; it simply adds a pathway for families who often see the danger first. Claims that Question 2 lacks due process protections are unfounded.

Like ERPO statutes elsewhere, the proposed law includes sworn affidavits, judicial review, time-limited orders and a meaningful opportunity for the subject to contest the order with legal representation. These safeguards reflect constitutional principles and have withstood legal scrutiny.

Finally, the idea that the current law is sufficient is belied by experience. In Lewiston, the yellow flag law was not used, despite warning signs. That reflects not a failure of will, but a deficiency of legal design. The law’s complexity and reliance on medical evaluation and protective custody make it hard to use in urgent situations.

ERPOs complement—do not replace—existing pathways for mental health intervention. Law enforcement remains central to implementation, with discretion to coordinate safe service and crisis response.

We understand the political tightrope Maine leaders must walk. Misinformation has led some to believe that ERPO laws threaten the rights of law-abiding gun owners. They do not. What they do is prevent gun deaths — without stigmatizing people in crisis or removing property from those who are not dangerous. Our recent multistate study found that ERPOs may prevent one suicide for every 13 to 23 orders issued.

Question 2 is not a partisan proposal. It is a public health measure grounded in research and tailored to Maine’s needs. Passing it would honor the lessons of Lewiston and give communities a vital tool to protect life without infringing rights.

We urge Maine voters to look past the political rhetoric, trust the scientific evidence and consider the human stakes: more lives will be saved.