Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Maine Question 2, Extreme Risk Protection Orders to Restrict Firearms and Weapons Access Initiative (2025)
| Maine Question 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Civil trials and Firearms policy |
|
| Status On the ballot |
|
| Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Maine Question 2, the Extreme Risk Protection Orders to Restrict Firearms and Weapons Access Initiative, is on the ballot in Maine as an indirect initiated state statute on November 4, 2025.
A "yes" vote supports establishing a process for obtaining an Extreme Risk Protection Order, where family members, household members, or law enforcement petition for an order restricting a person's access to dangerous weapons, defined to include firearms, if the state determines they pose a significant danger of causing physical harm. |
A "no" vote opposes establishing a process for obtaining an Extreme Risk Protection Order. |
Overview
What would Question 2 do?
- See also: Measure design
Question 2 would permit citizens to request an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), sometimes referred to as a red-flag law, against another individual.[1][2] Law enforcement, the person's family, and household members would be qualified individuals to submit an ERPO person. An ERPO would prohibit that individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon. In terms of Question 2, dangerous weapon is a weapon "capable of producing death or serious bodily injury."[3] To file an ERPO, the petitioner would be required to produce an affidavit that lists the allegations of the danger the individual poses to themselves or others, as well as the dangerous weapons in the individual's possession and the location of the weapons, if known.[3]
Most ERPOs would require that a court hearing take place within two weeks of the filing date, after which a judge could require the surrender of dangerous weapons. An emergency ERPO, however, would permit automatic seizure of firearms and dangerous weapons if the district court determines they pose an immediate or significant danger. The court hearing would then take place within 14 days of the seizure. ERPOs require the responding individual to voluntarily turn over all dangerous weapons, but if the court determines he or she is unlikely to do so, a search warrant could be issued to seize all dangerous weapons.
At or before the termination of an ERPO, an individual would be permitted to provide proof that he or she no longer poses a risk of danger and have the weapons returned. Alternatively, the court would be able to determine that the risk of danger is maintained and renew the ERPO.
What is the state of firearm policy in Maine and other states?
Currently, Maine is the only state with a yellow flag law which requires a mental health evaluation before the confiscation of firearms. Maine's law, enacted in 2020, allows relatives or law enforcement to report a person suspected of threatening harm. Law enforcement can then take the person into protective custody, order a mental health evaluation, and if the doctor and police deem necessary, apply for a court order to temporarily confiscate firearms.[4]
As of June 2025, 21 states had enacted laws authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders. As of the same date, six states had enacted laws that prevent or restrict the adoption of extreme risk protection orders.
What do supporters and opponents of Question 2 say?
- See also: Support and Opposition
The Maine Gun Safety Coalition is leading the campaign in support of Question 2. Nacole Palmer, the executive director of the coalition, said, "We know that Mainers reject a false choice between gun rights and gun responsibility. That we can respect the freedom to own guns, but also respect that communities have the right to feel safe."[5] On June 2, 2025, she said, "... a majority of Mainers support this common-sense tool that empowers family members to get help when a loved one is in danger and may pose a threat to themselves or others."[6]
The Gun Owners of Maine opposes Question 2. Laura Whitcomb, the president of the organization, said, "While the Maine Gun Safety Coalition continues to utilize emotional pleas in an attempt to manipulate the people of Maine, Gun Owners of Maine will stand ready with the facts, and will continue to defend the rights of responsible gun owners in the face of the anti-gun rights lobby's attempt to turn Maine into states like New York, Illinois and California."[7]
Measure design
Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of Question 2.
Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO): Filing an ERPO
Question 2 would allow for extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), which prohibits purchase, possession, or control of a dangerous weapon as defined by Maine law. An ERPO could be sought if a person is suspected of posing significant danger of causing physical injury to themselves or to another person. Under this measure, a significant danger is established if the person has inflicted or attempted to inflict physical injury to another person, placed another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, presented a danger to people in their care by action or inaction, or threatened or attempted suicide or serious bodily injury.[3]
The petition for an ERPO could be filed by a family member, household member, or law enforcement. A family or household member would include a spouse or domestic partner, a former spouse or domestic partner, an individual presently or formerly living with the respondent as a spouse of the respondent, a parent of a child of the respondent, an adult sibling of the respondent, an adult child of the respondent, a parent of the respondent, or an adult presently living with respondent.[3]
Dangerous weapons: Definition of dangerous weapon
Under Maine law, a dangerous weapon is defined as "a firearm or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury." A firearm is defined in Maine law as "any weapon, whether loaded or unloaded, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive and includes any such weapon commonly referred to as a pistol, revolver, rifle, gun, machine gun or shotgun. Any weapon which can be made into a firearm by the insertion of a firing pin, or other similar thing, or by repair, is a firearm."[3]
Affidavit and court hearing: Protocol for filing affidavit and court hearing process
Under Question 2, the petition for an ERPO would need to be supported by an affidavit stating the facts to support the allegations and to identify any dangerous weapons believed to be in the person’s possession. Any fraudulent claims made would be classified as a Class C crime. The District Court, upon receipt of the petition and affidavit, would be required to schedule a hearing which must be held within 14 days of the filing of the petition and to provide notice to the person who is subject to the petition.[3]
Following the hearing, if the district court finds that the person poses a significant risk of causing physical injury to others or oneself, the court would issue an ERPO, which would prohibit the person from purchasing, possessing, controlling, or receiving a dangerous weapon for up to a year.[3]
Emergency ERPO: Filing an emergency ERPO
Question 2 would allow for the district court to issue an emergency ERPO without prior notice to the person who is the subject of the requested order if the respondent poses immediate and significant danger of causing physical injury. If an emergency ERPO is granted, a subsequent hearing would need to be scheduled no later than 14 days after the order is issued.[3]
Surrender: Surrender of weapons under ERPO
A person who is subject to an ERPO would be required to immediately surrender all dangerous weapons in their possession, custody, or control to a law enforcement agency. If there is probable cause to believe the respondent will not relinquish weapons, the court could issue a search warrant authorizing law enforcement to seize any dangerous weapon at any location at the time of the issuance of the ERPO.[3]
Termination: Termination of ERPO and return of weapons
Under Question 2, an ERPO may be terminated upon the request of the person who is subject to the order if the person shows by clear and convincing evidence that he or she no longer poses a significant danger of causing physical injury to themselves or another person. An extreme risk protection order could be renewed for an additional period of up to a year.[3]
After termination or expiration of ERPO, any dangerous weapons would be released back to the owner after the request of the respondent and completion of a background check. A weapon would need to be returned within three days of the request after the termination of the ERPO.[3]
Annual report: Requirement of annual report
Question 2 would direct the state court administrator to report data related to this legislation annually. It would also direct the Department of Public Safety to submit a report to the joint standing committee of the legislature having jurisdiction over civil rights matters on the status of obtaining federal funding related to storing dangerous weapons in the custody of law enforcement agencies.[3]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title is as follows:[8]
| “ | 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?[9] | ” |
Full text
The full text of Question 2 is below:[10]
Support
Safe Schools, Safe Communities is leading the campaign in support of Question 2.[11]
Supporters
Organizations
- Alliance for Gun Responsibility
- Episcopal Diocese of Maine
- Global Impact Social Welfare Fund
- Maine Medical Association
- Responsible Gun Owners of Maine
Arguments
Opposition
Keep Maine Safe and Protect ME - No Red Flag, directed by the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, are leading the campaign in opposition to Question 2.[12][13]
Opponents
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
- See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2025
Safe Schools, Safe Communities is the PAC registered in support of Question 2. Protect ME - No Red Flag and Keep Maine Safe are the PACs registered in opposition to the measure.[14]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $428,557.74 | $71,085.22 | $499,642.96 | $358,135.09 | $429,220.31 |
| Oppose | $19,132.00 | $425.00 | $19,557.00 | $5,580.60 | $6,005.60 |
| Total | $447,689.74 | $71,510.22 | $519,199.96 | $363,715.69 | $435,225.91 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Question 2.[14]
| Committees in support of Question 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Safe Schools, Safe Communities | $428,557.74 | $71,085.22 | $499,642.96 | $358,135.09 | $429,220.31 |
| Total | $428,557.74 | $71,085.22 | $499,642.96 | $358,135.09 | $429,220.31 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.[14]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global Impact Social Welfare Fund | $75,000.00 | $0.00 | $75,000.00 |
| Alliance for Gun Responsibility | $51,500.00 | $0.00 | $51,500.00 |
| David Fitz | $11,035.25 | $0.00 | $11,035.25 |
| Maryanne Tagney | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Geoff Gratwick | $7,000.00 | $0.00 | $7,000.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to Question 2.[14]
| Committees in opposition to Question 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Protect ME - No Red Flag | $12,232.00 | $0.00 | $12,232.00 | $1,573.19 | $1,573.19 |
| Keep Maine Safe | $6,900.00 | $425.00 | $7,325.00 | $4,007.41 | $4,432.41 |
| Total | $19,132.00 | $425.00 | $19,557.00 | $5,580.60 | $6,005.60 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the opposition committees.[14]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gun Owners of Maine | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| SAM-ILA | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Robert Shelton | $1,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000.00 |
| Wiscasset Rod & Gun Club | $1,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000.00 |
| Jeffrey Richardson | $500.00 | $0.00 | $500.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Background
Laws governing firearms in Maine
As of 2025, Maine's firearm laws:[4]
- Required background checks, including private sales at gun shows, but not for private gun transfers outside of gun shows;
- Allowed individuals 21 years or older, who are not prohibited from possessing firearms, to carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit;
- Did not require permits to possess or purchase firearms;
- Required a 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases; and
- Allowed the sale of bump stocks.
As of 2025, Maine is the only state with a yellow flag law which requires a mental health evaluation before the confiscation of firearms. Maine's law, enacted in 2020, allows relatives or law enforcement to report a person suspected of threatening harm. Law enforcement can then take the person into protective custody, order a mental health evaluation, and if the doctor and police deem necessary, apply for a court order to temporarily confiscate firearms.[4]
Past firearm policy ballot measures in Maine
In 1987, the Maine State Legislature placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot that edited the wording of the right to bear arms in the state constitution. Before the amendment was adopted, Maine citizens had the "right to keep and bear arms for the common defense." After the amendment was adopted, citizens had the "right to keep and bear arms;" the section specifying "for the common defense" was removed.[15] Voters approved the amendment, with 57.6% voting yes and 42.43% voting no.
In 2016, voters decided an initiated state statute that proposed requiring background checks before a gun sale or transfer if the person selling the firearm was not a licensed firearm dealer. Federal law has required background checks for all gun sales by licensed dealers since the Brady Bill was signed into law in November 1993.[16] That law does not apply to private unlicensed dealers who may sell guns at gun shows, online, or in other private transactions. Voters defeated the measure, with 48.2% voting yes and 51.8% voting no.
Other states and extreme risk protection orders
As of August 2025, 21 states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington—had enacted laws authorizing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders. Of those states, one was controlled by a Republican trifecta when the law was adopted, and 13 were controlled by Democratic trifectas.
As of the same date, six states—Texas, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming—had enacted laws that prevent or restrict the adoption of extreme risk protection orders. These anti-red flag laws prohibit or limit courts from temporarily seizing the firearms of an individual who is believed to present a danger to others or themselves.[17] All six were controlled by Republican trifectas at the time of adoption.
Only one state, Washington, authorized the issue of ERPOs by a ballot measure. In 2016, Washington voters approved a citizen-initiated statute which permitted courts to issue ERPOs for a term of one year.
Path to the ballot
The state process
In Maine, the number of signatures required to qualify an indirect initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Petitions can be circulated for up to 18 months, but signatures must be no more than one year old to be valid. Signatures must be filed with the secretary by the 50th day of the first regular legislative session or the 25th day of the second regular session. Maine's initiative process is indirect, which means sufficient initiative petitions first go to the legislature and only go to the ballot if the legislature rejects or does not act on the initiative.
The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2025 ballot:
- Signatures: 67,682 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was January 23, 2025.
Each petition signature is certified by the local registrar of voters. The signatures are then submitted to the secretary of state. If enough signatures are verified, the initiatives are sent to the legislature. If the legislature approves the initiative, it becomes law. If the legislature does not act on the initiative or rejects it, the initiative goes on the ballot. The legislature may submit "any amended form, substitute, or recommendation" to the people alongside the initiative; this alternative is treated as a competing measure.
Details about this initiative
- October 24, 2024: The initiative was filed.[18]
- November 12, 2024: The Maine Gun Safety Coalition reported it collected at least 60,000 signatures.[19]
- January 23, 2024: The Maine Gun Safety Coalition said more than 80,000 signatures were filed.[20]
- March 7, 2025: The secretary of state announced that the citizen initiative was valid with 74,888 valid signatures. The initiative was then certified to the state legislature. [21]
- April 1, 2025: The initiative was referred to the Committee on Judiciary. The initiative was referred as Legislative Document 1378 (LD 1378).[22]
- June 9, 2025: Members of the state legislature debated the requirement to hold a public hearing on LD 1378, with some members saying it was required by state statute and some saying it was not required by the state constitution. A hearing date was set for June 11.[23]
- June 11, 2025: The state legislature held a public hearing on LD 1378. Among those who spoke at the hearing were representatives from Governor Janet Mills's (D) office, who argued against the bill, and the Maine Gun Safety Coalition. [24]
- June 17, 2025: Republicans in the legislature announced they intend to place a competing measure on the ballot. This measure would establish two new crisis centers offering services to those undergoing a mental health crisis, and require school resource officers to undergo training every two years on extreme risk protection orders. At a news conference, State Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-70) said that the measure would strengthen the yellow-flag law currently in place.[25]
- June 25, 2025: The Maine State Legislature adjourned sine die without taking a vote on the indirect initiative. No consideration hearing or vote was held for the competing measure proposed by State Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-70).[26]
- July 31, 2025: The Maine Secretary of State held a public lottery that numbered the ballot measure questions for the November 2025 ballot. The Extreme Risk Protection Order Initiative was assigned the official title Question 2.[27]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Maine
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Maine.
See also
View other measures certified for the 2025 ballot across the U.S. and in Maine.
Explore Maine's ballot measure history, including citizen-initiated ballot measures.
Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Maine Gun Safety Coalition, "Extreme Risk Protection Orders," accessed June 6, 2025
- ↑ NRA-ILZ, "Maine: Senate President Blocks Repeated Calls For Red Flag Hearing," accessed June 6, 2025
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 Maine Secretary of State, "Full text," accessed November 11, 2024
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Giffords Law Center, "Maine Gun Laws," accessed January 28, 2025
- ↑ Maine Public, "Stymied in the Maine Legislature, gun control activists hope voters will approve red flag law," accessed June 3, 2025
- ↑ Maine Public, "Gun owners' rights groups threaten lawsuit to force public hearing on 'red flag' proposal," accessed June 3, 2025
- ↑ Portland Press Herald, Maine, "Gun safety advocates turn in signatures to force fall referendum on red flag law," accessed June 3, 2025
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Secretary of State issues final wording on referendum question," accessed May 20, 2025
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Current Citizen Initiatives and People’s Vetoes," accessed June 2, 2025
- ↑ Safe Schools, Safe Communities, "Homepage," accessed August 4, 2025
- ↑ Keep Maine Safe, "Homepage," accessed July 16, 2025
- ↑ Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, "Homepage," accessed July 16, 2025
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 Maine Campaign Finance, "Committees," accessed January 27, 2025
- ↑ Maine Legislature, "Laws of the State of Maine As Passed By The One Hundred and Thirteenth Legislature," accessed June 3, 2025
- ↑ FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division, "National Instant Criminal Background Check System," accessed June 3, 2025
- ↑ Giffords Law Center, "Extreme Risk Protection Orders," accessed June 14, 2024
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Citizens Initiatives & People's Veto," accessed November 11, 2024
- ↑ WGAN, "Group: Signature Count High for Red Flag Law Ballot Measure," November 12, 2024
- ↑ Bangor Daily News, "Organizers say they collected more than 80K signatures to get red flag law referendum on Maine’s ballot," January 24, 2025
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Citizen initiative found valid with 74,888 signatures," March 7, 2025
- ↑ State of Maine Legislature, "Summary of LD 1378," accessed May 7, 2025
- ↑ Maine Public, "Maine Democrats reverse course, agree to hold ‘red flag’ public hearing this week," accessed Jun 10, 2025
- ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Red flag hearing offers preview of Maine's looming referendum battle," accessed June 16, 2025
- ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Maine Republicans, red flag opponents want to give voters another referendum option," accessed June 17, 2025
- ↑ WGME, "Maine Democrats decline to hear Gov. Mills-backed 'red flag' alternative," accessed June 26, 025
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "November 2025 Referendum Election ballot order of referendum questions announced," accessed August 4, 2025
- ↑ Maine Revised Statutes, "Title 21-A, Chapter 9, Section 626," accessed April 14, 2023
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections & Commissions, "State of Maine Voter Guide," accessed April 14, 2023
- ↑ WMTW 8, “Maine governor signs automatic voter registration bill into law,” June 21, 2019
- ↑ Maine Legislature, "H.P. 804 - L.D. 1126: An Act To Update the Voter Registration Process," accessed June 8, 2023
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Same Day Voter Registration," accessed January 31, 2023
- ↑ Department of the Secretary of State, "Maine Voter Registration Application," accessed November 1, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ Maine Secretary of State, "Your Right to Vote in Maine," accessed April 15, 2023
