Question 2 is a necessary next step to prevent gun violence in Maine | Opinion – The Portland Press Herald

Analysis of Maine’s Firearm Removal Legislation and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

This report examines firearm removal legislation in the state of Maine, focusing on the limitations of the current “yellow flag” law enacted in 2019 and the potential of a proposed Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), or “red flag” law, presented as Question 2 in a public referendum. The analysis is framed within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Current “Yellow Flag” Law: A Review of Efficacy and SDG Impact

Operational Limitations

Maine’s existing “yellow flag” law represents a bipartisan effort to balance public safety with civil liberties. However, its operational framework presents significant barriers to effective violence prevention, thereby hindering progress on key SDGs.

• Restrictive Initiation Process: The law can only be initiated by police for individuals already in protective custody.
• Mandatory Medical Evaluation: It requires a medical professional to determine that the individual has a mental illness and poses a danger to themselves or others.
• Exclusion of Non-Clinical Risk Factors: The law does not cover individuals who exhibit dangerous behaviors, such as escalating rage or threats, without a diagnosable mental disorder.

Shortcomings in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

The current law’s design falls short of fully supporting critical SDG targets.

1. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): By linking firearm removal exclusively to a mental health diagnosis, the law reinforces a harmful stigma. This contradicts Target 3.4, which aims to promote mental health and well-being. Research indicates most individuals with mental illness are not violent, and most violent individuals do not have a diagnosed mental illness. The law’s high threshold for intervention limits its effectiveness in preventing suicides and other firearm-related deaths.
2. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The complexity and narrow scope of the “yellow flag” law make it a less effective institution for achieving Target 16.1, which calls for a significant reduction in all forms of violence and related death rates. The tragic shooting in Lewiston, where the law was not utilized despite warning signs, exemplifies this institutional deficiency.

Proposed ERPO Legislation (Question 2): A Pathway to Enhanced SDG Achievement

Key Features of the Proposed “Red Flag” Law

The referendum’s Question 2 proposes a true ERPO statute that aligns with models proven effective in 21 other states. This measure is designed to address the gaps in the current law and more robustly support public health and safety objectives.

• Expanded Petitioning Authority: Allows family and household members, who are often the first to recognize warning signs, to petition a court directly for temporary firearm removal.
• Focus on Behavioral Risk: Enables courts to issue orders based on behavioral evidence of dangerousness, irrespective of a formal psychiatric diagnosis.
• Maintained Due Process: Incorporates essential constitutional safeguards, including judicial review, sworn affidavits, time-limited orders, and the right for the respondent to contest the order with legal representation.

Advancing Sustainable Development Goals

The adoption of an ERPO law would represent a significant step toward meeting SDG commitments.

1. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The proposed law provides a more direct and accessible legal tool for violence prevention, creating a stronger institutional framework to achieve Target 16.1. It empowers community members and law enforcement to act proactively before a tragedy occurs.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): By focusing on dangerous behavior rather than mental health status, the ERPO model helps de-stigmatize mental illness. Furthermore, multistate research demonstrates a direct positive impact on public health, finding that ERPOs may prevent one suicide for every 13 to 23 orders issued, directly contributing to the goal of reducing premature mortality.
3. SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Reducing gun violence is fundamental to achieving Target 11.1, which seeks to make communities safe, inclusive, and resilient. ERPOs provide a vital tool for enhancing community safety by intervening before violence erupts.

Conclusion

While Maine’s “yellow flag” law was a well-intentioned measure, research and practical experience have exposed its limitations as a tool for preventing gun violence. The proposed ERPO legislation outlined in Question 2 offers a more effective, evidence-based public health approach. Its adoption would strengthen Maine’s legal institutions and significantly advance the state’s progress toward achieving Sustainable Development Goals 3, 11, and 16 by providing a vital tool to reduce violence, promote well-being, and build safer communities for all citizens.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article connects directly to this goal by discussing mental health crises, the stigma associated with mental illness, and suicide prevention. It frames the proposed “red flag” law as a “public health measure” and cites research that Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) can prevent suicides.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • This goal is central to the article, which focuses on legal frameworks (“yellow flag” and “red flag” laws) designed to prevent gun violence and enhance public safety. The discussion revolves around strengthening institutions and laws to “prevent gun deaths” and reduce violence, thereby promoting a more peaceful and just society. The article also addresses due process and constitutional principles within these legal mechanisms.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
   • The article directly addresses this target by highlighting suicide prevention as a key outcome of ERPO laws. It states, “Our recent multistate study found that ERPOs may prevent one suicide for every 13 to 23 orders issued,” which is a direct effort to reduce premature mortality. The discussion on delinking gun violence from diagnosable mental illness also aims to reduce stigma and promote well-being.
2. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   • The entire premise of the article is to advocate for a legal tool to “prevent gun violence” and save lives. It references the “tragic shooting in Lewiston” as a failure of the current system and argues that the proposed law is a “vital tool to protect life.” This aligns perfectly with the goal of reducing violence and related deaths.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 3.4: Suicide rate or number of suicides prevented.
   • The article provides a specific, research-based metric that can be used as an indicator: “one suicide for every 13 to 23 orders issued.” This allows for the measurement of the law’s direct impact on preventing premature deaths from suicide.
2. Indicator for Target 16.1: Number of gun-related deaths and violent incidents.
   • While the article does not cite a specific statistical indicator, it consistently implies that the success of the proposed law would be measured by a reduction in gun violence. Phrases like “prevent gun deaths,” “more lives will be saved,” and preventing tragedies like the “shooting in Lewiston” point to the number of gun-related deaths and violent events as the primary measure of progress.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: pressherald.com