Don't Blame the Maine Shootings on 'Woefully Weak' Gun Laws
Criticism of the state’s "yellow flag" statute is doubly misguided.

Five months before an Army Reserve sergeant killed 18 people at a bowling alley and a bar in Lewiston, Maine, his relatives told police he was increasingly paranoid, erroneously complaining that people were describing him as a pedophile. Two months later, he underwent a psychiatric evaluation after service members who were training with him at Camp Smith in New York reported that he was behaving erratically, and last month he told a friend he was "going to shoot up the drill center" at his base in Saco, Maine.*
The fact that the 40-year-old petroleum supply specialist nevertheless managed to commit his horrifying crimes last week, after which he killed himself, underlines the challenge of identifying and thwarting mass murderers. But contrary to what some critics claimed, the problem was not Maine's "woefully weak" gun regulations.
On its face, Maine's "yellow flag" law, enacted in 2019, could have made a crucial difference in this case. It authorizes police, after taking someone into "protective custody" based on probable cause to believe he is "mentally ill" and poses a threat to himself or others, to ask a "medical practitioner" for an assessment of whether the detainee "presents a likelihood of foreseeable harm."
If the medical practitioner thinks so, police "shall" seek a court order temporarily barring the individual from obtaining or possessing firearms. The respondent is entitled to a hearing within 14 days, after which the order can be extended for up to a year based on "clear and convincing evidence" of a threat.
Since the Maine killer was released after spending two weeks in a New York psychiatric hospital, he apparently did not meet the state's criteria for involuntary commitment at that point.* But that needn't have been the end of the matter.
After the shootings, neighbors in Bowdoin said the sergeant's psychological problems were "pretty well-known." The Maine Information and Analysis Center had alerted police about his "recently reported mental health issues," including "hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard Base in Saco, ME."
The local sheriff's office had received disturbing reports from "increasingly concerned" relatives, friends, and the Saco base. But its investigation did not result in an assessment or a court order, possibly because police thought his relatives had "a way to secure his weapons."
Gun control activists complained that Maine's "yellow flag" law is harder to use than the "red flag" laws that 21 states have enacted, which have fewer and weaker procedural protections. That criticism seems doubly misguided.
First, this looks like a situation where Maine's law could have been used but for some reason was not. Second, the state's requirements are aimed at minimizing the number of people who lose their Second Amendment rights for no good reason.
Weaker protections for respondents might make effective intervention more likely. Or they might not.
Despite what in retrospect looks like clear warning signs, New York's "red flag" law did not prevent the massacre that killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket in 2022. Nor did California's "red flag" law prevent two mass shootings that killed 18 people in that state last January.
One thing is clear: Casting a wider net inevitably means that more people will be deprived of their constitutional rights even when they do not actually pose a threat to public safety. That is true not only of "red flag" laws but also of the federal ban on gun possession by people who have been involuntarily committed to psychiatric institutions, which applies no matter how long ago that happened and regardless of whether they were ever deemed a threat to others.
Police said the Maine murderer was legally allowed to buy guns because he had no such record. The answer, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says, is laxer standards for civil commitment rather than stricter gun control. Both prescriptions ignore the tradeoff between civil liberties and crime prevention, which activists and politicians, try as they might, cannot wish away.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
*CORRECTION: Based on early news reports, the original version of this article erroneously said the Maine killer trained at West Point and spent two weeks at the military hospital there.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If someone (who hears voices) saying they are going to shoot someplace up doesn't cross a red or yellow flag, what does?
Even if they don't own guns yet.
I'm no psychiatrist, but if you wanted to exacerbate someone's paranoia that people were out to get them, sending people to get them would probably be the best way to do it.
Relatedly, I'm not on anyone's "People to Kill" list that I'm aware of, but if you suspected someone had such a list and wanted to get on it...
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website…
More infor... http://Www.Smartwork1.Com
I am making over $30k a month working part time. I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use this Following Website
More infor…. http://Www.Smartwork1.Com
Move the reply button
Why?
I think he thinks that if it's a very primitive kind of bot, they may not be able to function anymore. I somehow doubt that would be effective though.
That is a good question. Girl-bulliers say the First Amendment demands mystical zealots run loose with unlimited weaponry. Of the nearly 5000 gun berserkers in schools, one (01) turned out to be female, and that after the Trumpanzee court violated the 13th Amendment. Freeing women from any and all gun restrictions won't make up for Trump Court Comstockery; but it couldn't hurt. Robert Card murdered 8 times as many males as females. The gals at the scenes could have dropped him if properly armed.
Whose mind did you think that tirade would change?
It doesn’t underline the challenge of identifying would-be mass murderers. They identified him, and no one did anything about it. This wasn’t a borderline case.
A student at Columbia made death threats and is facing 6 years in jail now.
Is that in addition to the Cornell case?
So easier to use red flag laws failed to prevent mass murders; and harder to use yellow flag laws failed to prevent mass murders; yet gun control nuts still want to take away the gun rights of more people who will never commit a crime with a gun. Could it be that that’s the point? Could it be that they only pretend to care about preventing mass murders while using any handy, logical-sounding excuse to grab as many guns as possible? Say it ain’t so, Joe! If only we COULD have a common sense discussion about rational gun control laws - but, alas, gun control nuts aren't rational.
“If only we COULD have a common sense discussion about rational gun control laws”
Fuck you, shall not be infringed.
If you don't know how it works or it's not yours and you don't have permission, don't fucking touch it.
Treat it as if it's loaded and know the condition in.
Don't point it at anything you don't intend to kill or destroy.
Be aware of what it is pointed at and what's beyond it.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to shoot.
End of discussion.
*cough*AlecBaldwin*cough*
Who says he wasn't doing all of that? He's been trained in gun safety several times.
Sorry, I may not have made myself clear: I fully support "Shall Not Be INFRINGED!" My rational gun control discussion with the gun control nuts would go like this: "You can have our guns when you can pry them from our cold, dead fingers!" M'kay?
These things can't be prevented. There are people who will talk and talk but never follow through, people who will meticulously plan and execute without telling anyone, and all sorts in between.
No amount of well-intentioned flag-laws will catch people before they act.
The best we can hope for is that by allowing people to defend themselves, shootings can be cut short. That, of course, is the last possibility politicians and the media will consider.
Tell that to the other side.
If only we COULD have a common sense discussion about rational gun control laws
All of the leftist buzz words. Common sense, rational, and "could" in all caps.
When I see the MSM saying "Trump supporters (and Trump himself) should be locked up for insane and cultish behavior", that's all I need to know about leftist gun control "policies".
Never disarm for someone who wants you dead or in prison.
Have you ever considered telling someone you disagree with why what they say is wrong, as opposed to telling them that they as a person are wrong? You don't change minds by attacking people. That just puts them on the defensive.
I think as a society we are well beyond that. Political campaigns these days aren't about "vote for me and I'll do this" its more "vote for me or else the other guy will do that."
In a climate like that you don't want to change minds, you want your opponents on the defensive and doubling down on whatever they believe in so you can keep pointing at them and saying "See? Is that really who you want in charge?"
I mean in discourse between individuals, not political campaigns. What you say is true. Or as Mencken put:
“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right.”
People invariably fall into campaign tactics when discussing political issues with others, such as quoting slogans or bringing up the standard talking points. So discourse between individuals simply becomes another campaign.
I don't know if politics is downstream from culture, or if its the other way around, but I think either way we're screwed.
People invariably fall into campaign tactics when discussing political issues with others, such as quoting slogans or bringing up the standard talking points. So discourse between individuals simply becomes another campaign.
Maybe for extreme partisans, but not for the average person with a mind of their own.
...as opposed to telling them that they as a person are wrong?
They, as a person, are wrong. Gun control schemes have led to the deaths of 200M in the last century alone. Gun control is the prequel to genocide. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional and needs to be attacked, philosophically speaking.
They, as a person, are wrong.
Have you ever been persuaded into changing your mind about something? If so, did you think of yourself, as a person, as being wrong, or did you simply believe something that was wrong?
Have you ever been persuaded into changing your mind about something? If so, did you think of yourself, as a person, as being wrong, or did you simply believe something that was wrong?
Q1 - Yes, I've changed my mind. Facts will do that to people who are capable of critical thought.
Q2- Both. If you believe in something that is factually wrong, it is a character defect.
My philosophy doesn't apply to opinions.
I disagree on Q2. There’s nothing wrong with believing something that is incorrect. We all believe things that are wrong. I figure a good 30% of what I know is incorrect, and I’m always ready to change my mind when proven wrong.
Unless you’ve reached some level of perfection above the rest of us mortals, much of what you know to be correct is also wrong.
The character defect is when someone refuses to change their mind in the face of evidence to the contrary.
RE: Q2 -
I'll use flat-earthers as an example. They are demonstrably wrong; and all evidence supports them as factually wrong. Character defect.
Religious people is my next example - At this point in time, they cannot be proven wrong. A higher entity may be real, even if I do not subscribe to the belief. *I* do not see this as a character defect, as it is faith based.
This is a simplistic take, I realize. What is wrong or right, fact or fiction is generally on the individual.
Seems to me that facts, politics and faith are getting blurred.
Facts are supposed to be things you can't argue about.
Facts are supposed to be things you can’t argue about.
Vaccines are 100% Safe and effective.
Is anything 100% safe and effective?
But flat earthers are people who refuse to have their minds changed based on abundant data that contradicts their beliefs. The refusal to change is the character defect, not having the wacky beliefs in the first place.
👍
Oh wow, that worked.
https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+1F44D
Have you ever considered telling someone you disagree with why what they say is wrong, as opposed to telling them that they as a person are wrong?
There's no "dialoguing" with people like Shannon Watts and the Bloomberg/Moms Demand Action crowd. These are salami-slicers that keep making increasingly stringent demands in the delusional belief that they can make a 100% safe society, using the same unity-criticism-unity dialectic of the Maoists. The only way to interact with people like this is relentless, intractable resistance, and never take anything they say at face value.
There are a lot of former leftists out there, and they didn't become former leftists by being relentlessly attacked.
Note that I'm not saying the MDA crowd should never be engaged with--you never leave the battlefield uncontested. I'm just saying that 2A supporters shouldn't ever assume a desire for honest debate from them, and every bit of rhetoric is going to be employed to bring about that unity-criticism-unity pathway. Basically, it's like this:
Unity: "Don't you agree that we need common-sense gun control laws?"
Criticism: "It's too easy for people to access weapons of war. These laws will prevent that."
Unity: "Why do you even need a gun? That's what the police are for."
Some people are willfully ignorant and can't be reasoned with, that's true. But I wouldn't assume everyone is a zealot.
People like that are probably not worth arguing with because they aren't arguing in good faith but are attached to their ideological positions. But there are a lot of genuinely well meaning people who aren't ideological activists who could be open to other arguments and convinced by facts and reason. People do sometimes change their minds.
Rank-and-file gun control supporters and stympathizers are afraid of the street thug and the gangbanger.
Too many of them have compelling reasons to fear the street thug and the gangbanger.
I think many gun control supporters can be greatly influenced by a trip to the range.
Now I wonder why this mass shooter chose a bowling alley instead of a gun shop? Think about it.
In a gun free zone.
According to something I read elsewhere, the local police have said that there is evidence that he thought people at both businesses he hit were "describing him as a pedophile".
Is there any evidence he wasn't a pedophile?
The following laws are in place:
* 1934 National Firearms Act
* 1968 Gun Control Act
* 1986 Hughes Amendment
* 1996 Lautenberg Amendment
Since murders still happen, does this mean these laws failed in their advertised goal and, as such, should be repealed?
don't forget the 30,000 state laws out there.
The law against committing murder also failed to prevent these murders. Should that also be repealed?
That depends. Were the laws against committing murder advertised as preventing murder? Go research false equivalency and spare us your piddling rhetorical bullshit.
What else would a law against committing murder be "advertised as" (whatever that means)?
Laws against murder are not intended to prevent murder. The intention is to meter out punishment, or consequences for the act.
Gun control laws advertise preventative measures but delivers nothing.
Why was he given those powerful hearing aids? Then he began hearing horrible things being said to him. MK-Ultra
And how does someone commit suicide by shooting themselves in the head twice?
I have yet to read a peer reviewed study abut mass shooting perpetrators consulting the gun laws prior to their rampages. Has this vast wealth of information somehow escaped me? Gun control laws are about as relevant as a dress code for a deranged individual. The purpose of gun control laws is to disarm citizens who still believe that following the law is the right path. Those people aren't generally a threat to their neighbors. Gun control laws are a threat to the freedom of individuals, and a boon to government power.
"The" law meant different things to different people. "The" law says not to touch some plant leaves or use birth control. From 1919 through 1933, "the" law said light beer was a banned narcotic, and, as of March 1929, a chain-gang felony.
Under rational cost-benefit analysis, a law whose only cost is preventing gun ownership doesn’t have to prevent many murders to be wildly beneficial.
And does your rational (that word again) cost-benefit analysis factor in lives saved by DGU's?
Under rational cost-benefit analysis, a law whose only cost is preventing
guncar ownership doesn’t have to prevent manymurdersautomobile deaths to be wildly beneficial.Now, kindly fuck off.
Cars transport you from place to place in addition to killing people during accidents.
Fully automatic weapons do nothing besides kill people or animals very fast. You can hunt, shoot targets, and defend yourself without automatic weapons.
The main problem with an 'assault weapons' ban is that nobody defines 'assault weapon' properly.
Fully automatic weapons do nothing besides kill people or animals very fast.
Fully automatic weapons do nothing except discharge bullets with a single trigger pull. That's it, nothing more. Everything else you driveled is what the operator does.
As we’re already in Fallacytown, here’s a different take:
Cars are meant for transport and sports (wanna ban Formula 1?), not speeding, drunk driving or running people over deliberately. Guns are meant for deterring offenders, self-defense, and sports/recreation (you wanna ban the Olympics?), not for killing people.
Fully automatic weapons do nothing besides ensuring increased deterrent effects compared to semi-automatic weapons and prevent or resolve conflicts effectively. This is something the American people should have broad access to. Americans can also have cars that can go 200 mph.
Whose benefit?
In November 1938 Jewish boy shot a Christian National Socialist in Germany's embassy in Paris. A law was quickly enacted banning Jewish gun ownership in Germany. It took less than four years for trainloads to begin arriving at dozens of death camps. So, what kind of cost benefit analysis says that was a good outcome?
Tired, stupid troll is tired and stupid. Mute.
Your take reveals European levels of ignorance. Are from EU or Oz by chance?
This is a particularly evil piece from Reason.com. We STILL arrest 250,000 people a year for touching the cannabis plant, but we can’t arrest insane maniacs and take their machine guns?
Do the Koch Brothers enjoy a bloodthirsty homeland? Lots of bullets & blood for the lower classes, is that it?
Ever notice that no mass shootings take place at expensive restaurants, financial services firms, country clubs? Where the super rich people hang out?
The more violent the USA is, the more they can militarize us to oppress the lower classes. That seems to be the gameplan. That and keep investing in ultra-violent Holllywood films – replacing the vaudeville live entertainment culture we had before. The aristocrats always demonized entertainers and treated them like a 2nd class minority before putting them out of business with mass-corporate entertainment
Finally, an educated commenter of the looter persuasion braves the scorn of looters who swarm here to impersonate and embarrass libertarians. The overarching function of the Second Amendment is defense–to protect the American citizenry from hostile attacks, foreign and domestic. Anarco-communist infiltrators love seeing the Amendment disgraced and caricatured so another Nixon can violate it with a fountain pen to aid totalitarian enemies pushing ABM treaties as "arms control".
Ever notice that no mass shootings take place at expensive restaurants, financial services firms, country clubs? Where the super rich people hang out?
You mean mass shooters don’t stalk golf courses where their victims in groups of four or less are hundreds of yards apart and everyone can flee in any direction? Shooters don’t swim out to private yachts to kill whomever may or may not be on board? That people like the Kochs don’t generally hang out at country music concerts in Las Vegas or attend BLM rallies?
I’ve got no love for the remaining Kochs, but this is fucking retarded.
Tired, stupid troll is tired and stupid. Mute.
There was also a mass shooting in a San Francisco law firm, located at 101 California Street, on July 1, 1993.
There's nothing wrong with the government locking up mentally ill people who are threats to society, and in the current era of rampant homelessness, tax payers have a right to expect government to protect them.
Desantis hasn't proposed anything concrete, he's only saying that more people like Card should be involuntarily committed. Reason just assumes civil rights violations that haven't occurred.
Reason criticizes Florida's Baker Act for wrongly committing children, but the law "technically" only allows incarceration for patients 18 years or older. So the problem once again is government not properly enforcing its own laws.
Mass shooting is merely one of the worst case scenarios and mentally ill individuals roaming the streets free. Many vagrants that assaulted those poor, poor Asians had mental issues. Yes, it turns out Trump saying "Kung Flu" didn't drive into a frenzy of hate.
Reason’s comment section is such an embarrassment. Not only have they ignored spam for a decade, they don’t even have a karma button to allow better comments to float up.
If you want updoot dopamine, go to reddit.
Be thankful for the Flag and Moot Lewser. Anyone wandering in sees wall-to-wall christianofascist hateposting. Publications unhobbled by anarco-whack delusions unbesmirch themselves from such vandalism.
If you want to ban opinions you don't like as vandalism, you are the vandalist.
Robert Card, like Robert Dear, Adolf Hitler and the Saudis who crashed planes into the World Trade center, was a spellbound believer in mystical revelations and presumptuous assumptions about Invisible Friends. Mystical belief is the either-or alternative to the rational sanity that values freedom, thriving and happiness. Mystical media outleets downplay Card's obsession with theology and cultism enriched by exploiting trusting dupes. These are the same sources that assert Hitler and the Reverend Jim Jones were "not" christian. Facts undistorted by Doublethink re-interpretations indicate that mystical superstition is a mental teratogenic. The Robert Card case is another such fact among millions of similar facts mystical brainwashers struggle to evade. Sullum, I trust, does not mean to reinforce this sort of self-deception. Is the elision responsible journalism?
Both venues the killer shot up were "gun-free zones," again. (As 94 percent of them are.)
If you want to ban something, victim disarmament areas would be an excellent start.
The bowling alley was not a "gun-free zone", and neither was the bar. The former once (there is a picture from 2021) had a small sign taped to the window "kindly requesting" people not to bring guns inside, but that doesn't make it illegal for people to do so.
Few politicians seem to be focusing on the real problem here - it’s not a capability issue (access to guns) but the real issue is some Americans that solve problems using violence.
Maybe what would really make us safer is for public schools to offer future college credits to students for part-time and summer jobs. Kids need to learn work ethic and how to socialize with other people (even people they may disagree with politically).
Maybe restore “Debate Clubs” in high school? Teach the next generation how use logic and reason, debating the issue instead of attacking the speaker.
Today in 2023, according to some polls, Harvard University is one of the worst universities on respecting First Amendment speech rights and the constitutional rule of law system. And it’s not just students banning speech they disagree with, but Ivy League professors are imposing their political views onto their students - illegal under the First Amendment, for any public school, since the professors are government officials.
Good luck with that.
If you threaten to kill people you should lose you right to possess guns permanently. That should be a requirement to own a gun . I don’t care if you’re having a bad day or are having a mental health crisis. People are put on no fly lists . They have their drivers license revoked. Felons lose their right to vote .
If you threaten to kill people you should lose you right to possess guns permanently.
Do comments about woodchippers apply here?