Police Break Ranks, Warn Citizens to Vote Against Controversial Gun Initiative

Maine’s November ballot is suddenly about more than policy.

It’s about process, trust, and who you want making the hardest calls when someone might be dangerous with a gun.

And unusually, many of the loudest skeptics are wearing badges.

That’s the story emerging from Steve Mistler’s detailed reporting at Maine Public, paired with a blunt warning video from Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets 2A News. Both are talking about Question 2, a proposed “red flag”–style law that would create a new path to temporarily remove firearms.

One source brings the statute-by-statute breakdown.

The other brings a constitutional fire alarm.

Together, they capture why Maine’s debate is so charged – and why law enforcement opposition matters.

What Question 2 Would Do

As Steve Mistler explains, Question 2 would create an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO). Family or household members, or police, could petition a judge to temporarily restrict someone’s access to guns if they’re deemed dangerous.

The order is civil, not criminal. No conviction, no charge, no plea.

But if a judge signs it, guns must be surrendered and purchases are blocked.

There’s a hearing within 14 days, with an emergency option to act first. And, crucially, lying on an affidavit is a felony – a nod to due-process critics who worry about false claims. 

The standard of proof? Preponderance of evidence – more likely than not. That’s the same threshold Maine uses in domestic abuse protection orders that can also restrict firearms, supporters note. 

How Maine’s ‘Yellow Flag’ Works Today

Here’s where Maine is different.

Mistler reports that the state already has a “yellow flag” law – a 2019 compromise crafted by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and Gov. Janet Mills. Only police can initiate it, and they must place the person in protective custody and obtain a mental health evaluation before asking a judge for restrictions. 

That extra medical step is unique compared to conventional red flag laws.

Backers say it protects due process. Critics say it’s cumbersome, slow, and wrongly assumes mental illness is the gateway to violence.

Mistler’s reporting adds a practical wrinkle: since the Lewiston mass shooting in 2023, police utilization of yellow flag orders exploded – from roughly 80 uses in three years to 950-plus in 22 months. Some see proof the system is working. Others see a system straining and missing people it should catch. 

Why Some Police Unions Are Saying “Vote No”

Enter the police backlash to Question 2.

In his video, Jared Yanis highlights a public stance by the Fraternal Order of Police in Maine, which he says has come out strongly against the measure – calling it a “disaster in a disaster waiting to happen.” 

Yanis is frank: he wishes police were opposing it on constitutional grounds. He says most are emphasizing safety and logistics instead.

Their core fear, as Yanis frames it, is practical and immediate: officers will be sent into more volatile, unpredictable seizures – often at people’s homes, with little warning, and without the “cooling” effect of the existing mandatory mental health evaluation.

That’s not abstract. It’s an officer standing at a door at 5 a.m., not knowing what’s on the other side.

Do I wish every union statement also carried a robust due-process argument? Yes. But Yanis is right to say the operational risk is real. And when the people who have to carry out these orders say the new process raises danger, voters should pay attention.

The Due Process Fight

Yanis spends most of his segment on the constitutional case. His view: ERPOs invert the American rulebook.

He argues they often allow ex parte action, guns seized before a hearing, while lowering the burden of proof to “more likely than not.” He says that flips the presumption of innocence, forcing citizens to prove they are not dangerous to recover their rights.

Because these are civil orders, he adds, targets have no right to a public defender. If you want a lawyer, you pay. If you can’t, you argue alone.

Yanis ties it to Heller and Bruen: restrictions must fit within historical tradition. He says there’s no founding-era analog to disarming people based on predictions or accusations detached from a criminal proceeding.

You don’t have to agree with every flourish to see the through-line: rights first, then process – not the other way around. Even if you’re sympathetic to ERPOs, the safeguards are everything.

Here’s my take: if policymakers want ERPOs to survive legal scrutiny and public trust, they should maximize adversarial process (fast hearings, guaranteed counsel for the indigent), minimize ex parte orders, and sharpen penalties for malicious petitions. 

Maine’s Question 2 includes a felony for false statements, which is a start. But the standard of proof and speed to seizure matter just as much.

The Standards-of-Proof Showdown

Mistler surfaces one of the debate’s most concrete choices: preponderance vs. clear and convincing. 

Yellow flag uses the higher standard, coupled with the mental health evaluation.

Question 2 uses the lower standard, without a mandatory eval.

Supporters, like Jack Sorensen of Safe Schools, Safe Communities, say preponderance is already used to restrict gun access in domestic abuse cases. If it’s adequate there, why not here? 

Opponents answer that risk-based disarmament – especially ex parte – demands more than the low bar we use in civil disputes. They also warn that removing the required evaluation trades speed for more bad calls, more confrontations, and more rights violations.

This is the fulcrum. If you think the gate must be wide and fast, you’ll like Question 2. If you think the gate must be narrow and hard to open, you’ll prefer yellow flag.

The Lewiston Shadow – and What “Use” Really Means

Both camps invoke Lewiston. Mistler notes that supporters say an ERPO could have stopped the shooter; opponents blame individual failures to use the existing yellow flag. 

A state commission chaired by Anne Jordan said the yellow flag should have been used in that case and called the law “cumbersome,” even as it pressed for more tools for police and families. 

Mistler also contextualizes the post-Lewiston surge in yellow flag usage. Big departments are the heavy users, smaller towns often never used it, and Maine’s broader gun-law landscape isn’t the same as Massachusetts or Connecticut. Comparisons can mislead.

My read: the surge proves demand exists for an emergency mechanism. It doesn’t, by itself, vindicate either model. If your paramedics use the difficult tool ten times more often after a disaster, that’s not an argument to keep the tool difficult – or to make it easy. It’s a signal to measure outcomes and tune for accuracy.

Who Should Pull the First Lever – Family or Police?

One of Mistler’s most important distinctions is who can file. Yellow flag: police only. Question 2: police or family/household members.

Gov. Mills objects to putting that burden on families. “That’s their job,” she said of police. “It’s an enormous responsibility that (families) probably shouldn’t have.” 

Advocates counter that families often see warning signs first, and right now they’re limited to pleading with law enforcement to act under a slow, narrow process.

This is a hard, humane question: Are we protecting families by keeping them out of it—or leaving them powerless when seconds matter? Good-faith people can disagree.

What Voters Are Really Choosing

Strip away the slogans and Question 2 asks Maine to choose speed over friction, access over gatekeeping, and family standing over police exclusivity.

Steve Mistler’s reporting shows how the two systems diverge in who files, what evidence, how fast, and what protections are built in. It also shows the post-Lewiston reality: the old tool is being used a lot – and many still think it wasn’t enough.

Jared Yanis lays down the bright-line constitutional challenge: no punishment before process. He warns that lowering the bar and moving faster risks deadly mistakes, rights violations, and a government power with a thin historical pedigree.

Here’s my bottom line.

If Maine adopts Question 2, it must pair it with guardrails: narrow emergency criteria, rapid adversarial hearings, guaranteed counsel for those who can’t afford it, and independent reporting on outcomes. 

If the state keeps the yellow flag as the primary tool, it should keep investing in training, capacity, and clearer protocols so police can use it consistently and correctly.

Either path without measurement and transparency invites failure.

Police opposition doesn’t automatically make a law wrong. But when the people tasked with carrying it out say the new model raises danger, it’s not “politics as usual.”

It’s a flashing light on the dashboard. Voters should read the gauges before they press the accelerator.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.