The Maine Gun Safety Coalition announced in January 2025 that they had gathered over 80,000 signatures from Maine citizens in support of the initiative.[1] The signatures were validated in March 2025, and the initiative was certified as having qualified for the ballot in the November 2025 election.[2]
In June, gun owners' rights groups threatened to file a lawsuit against theMaine Legislature if it did not schedule a public hearing on the citizens' proposed ERPO Act, as required by state law.[3] Opposition within the Legislature to holding the hearing was dropped soon after.[4] As the Legislature did not vote to enact the citizens' initiated Act, it will now go to the voters on the November 2025 ballot as Question 2.[5]
Question 2 is a citizen-initiated measure in response to a2023 mass shooting inLewiston that killed 18 people.[6] The shooter's family had previously expressed concern about his mental wellbeing and unsuccessfully urgedlaw enforcement to confiscate his guns, though the 'yellow flag' law in effect at the time required that police officers take the gun owner into custody, then submit him to a mental health evaluation by medical personnel, before they could go to court for a temporary order to remove his guns, none of which occurred.[7][8]
Unlike Maine's yellow flag law, Question 2 does not require the homicidal or suicidal individual to be taken into custody first and subjected to mental health evaluation before obtaining the temporary gun removal order.[9] Thus, if Question 2 passes, law enforcement will have the ability to obtain a court order to remove the individual's guns when they are away from their home or car, without having to find and detain them.[9]
Maine currently has yellow flag laws, a lesser version ofred flag laws. In Maine, only law enforcement officers can confiscate firearms, while a judge requires a mental health evaluation to do the same.[10]
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?[11]
The initiative would allow judges to more easily issue extreme risk protection orders, permitting them to authorize confiscation of firearms if an individual is deemed a threat by a judge based on evidence presented by law enforcement or family members.[12] It would also prohibit the individual from purchasing a firearm for one year, unless the respondent files a successful motion to terminate the extreme risk protection order early.[13]
The confiscation/prohibition process begins with a family member or a law enforcement officer filing an affidavit attesting to the alleged threat the individual poses. A judge may hold a hearing, at which the individual may argue in their defense, within fourteen days of the affidavit's filing, or a judge may choose to use an "emergency clause" to forcibly confiscate the individual's firearms immediately, before any due process, with a hearing scheduled within fourteen days.[13] A confiscation may last for up to a year.[13]
County results
Congressional district results
Yes
