Maine Republicans, gun rights groups try to force hearing on 'red flag' proposal
Republican lawmakers are accusing the majority of violating state law by refusing to hold the hearing because it will undermine their campaign to pass the law.
If approved by voters, the citizens initiative would make it easier for family members to have firearms temporarily taken away from people who are in crisis and may pose a danger to themselves or others.
Sen. Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, said at a press conference Thursday that if Democrats don't reverse course and hold a hearing, Republicans will try to force the issue through a series of floor votes.
And the National Rifle Association said Thursday that it will join a planned lawsuit over legislative Democrats' refusal to hold a public hearing.
Stewart said Senate Republicans plan to offer a flurry of proposals to put Democrats on the record as opposing a chance for the public to weigh in.
"It doesn't matter how you break this one down," Stewart said. "There needs to be a hearing. It's abundantly clear they're in violation of Maine law. Once again, (we're) giving them an opportunity to do the right things here. But if by today that is not the case (and) that has not yet happened, you're going to see a flurry of orders put forward by Republicans in the Senate."
Democrats, who control both chambers and control committees that conduct public hearings, say they don't need to hold a hearing because the question will be decided by voters.
Gun safety groups collected signatures to force a fall referendum on the red flag law, which would allow family members to directly petition a court to temporarily confiscate firearms.
Maine currently has what is known as a yellow flag law, which was negotiated by Gov. Janet Mills, gun rights groups and gun safety groups. It can only be initiated by police and requires a mental health evaluation before a court petition can be filed to confiscate a person's firearms.
A state law requires that a public hearing be held on statewide referendum questions, unless that hearing is waived by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. And hearings have been routinely held for other referendum questions, including a recent hearing on a referendum to enact a voter ID requirement and additional restrictions on absentee voting.
Lawmakers have three options when receiving a qualified citizens initiative: Enact it without changes, send it to voters, or send it to voters with a competing measure. Democrats have made clear this initiative will be sent to voters without an effort to pass it in the Legislature.
Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee, said she believes a state law requiring a hearing conflicts with the state Constitution, which doesn't mention the need for a public hearing. And since lawmakers have signaled they don't plan to enact the proposal, a hearing isn't necessary.
Carney also noted last week that a hearing on a similar red flag proposal was held last session.
But opponents of the referendum are clamoring for a hearing.
The Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine issued an action alert this week, arguing that Democrats don't want to hold a hearing because it will highlight opposition, including from Gov. Janet Mills and other Democratic lawmakers.
Mills came out against a red flag bill proposed last session, but the bill was never brought forward for a floor vote after an hours-long public hearing that drew a divided crowd.
"Under Maine law, all ballot initiatives MUST receive a public hearing before going to the Maine voters," SAM's alert states. "But Judiciary Chairs and Maine Gun Safety Coalition allies are blocking that hearing. Why?
"Because Michael Bloomberg and the progressive gun-control lobby know it could END their campaign. This is because a massive bipartisan coalition of Mainers, including Governor Janet Mills, law enforcement, and lawmakers, will discuss the dangerous and potentially deadly realities of this extreme law."
Aids more Mills did not respond to a question about whether Mills would personally testify before the committee, which would be a rare and dramatic moment, or if her administration would testify on her behalf, which usually occurs.
This story will be updated.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
19 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Leading Democrats and advocates for the homeless are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing homeless people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. Newsom has directed cities to clean up homeless encampments and he's funneled more money into programs to treat addiction and mental health disorders. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on 'creating distracting headlines and settling old scores.' 'But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. 'Moving people from one street to the next or from the street to jail and back again will not solve this problem,' she said in a statement. ___ Kramon reported from Atlanta. She is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
New York Post
20 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trouble-packed NYC animal shelters land another $1M in taxpayer funds — GOP's Sliwa slams as ‘drop in the bucket'
The city is dumping another $1 million into its troubled jam-packed animal-shelter system to hire and train 14 new staffers, City Hall said Friday. The Animal Care Centers of New York City — a nonprofit with a $1.4 billion contract to run the Big Apple's animal-shelter system for 34 years — recently announced it was suspending its intake of dogs and cats because of 'critical' overcrowding. The move came days after a Post expose revealed ongoing sickening conditions at ACC's new $75 million city-funded shelter in Queens. Advertisement 5 Anna Garguilo, an adoptions counselor with Charmy, 4, an Akita mix. Stephen Yang 'ACC's work to ensure no animal is left behind is essential to protecting animals across New York City, and our administration is proud to invest $1 million in additional funding to support the work ACC does and boost their capacity to better care for animals,' Mayor Eric Adams said in a statement. 'I also urge New Yorkers looking for a pet addition to their families to adopt, so we can ensure that every animal can find a loving home.' Advertisement But GOP mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa slammed the funding announcement as a piecemeal solution to the larger problem of animal welfare in Gotham. 'The city has completely ignored animal welfare,' Sliwa wrote on X. 'Today's $1M for ACC is a drop in the bucket. ACC has a 34-year contract worth over $1B—and yet our shelters are overcrowded, surrenders are paused, and animals are suffering.' 5 New York City mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa holds a campaign event outside of an Animal Care Center on 110th street in East Harlem in Manhattan. Stephen Yang 5 'ACC has a 34-year contract worth over $1B—and yet our shelters are overcrowded, surrenders are paused, and animals are suffering,' Sliwa said. Stephen Yang Advertisement The red-beret-wearing Republican, who shares an apartment with six rescue cats, earlier this week called for the city to end its contract with ACC and replace it with a city-run overhaul that would include a 'quasi-private public partnership' to shift the cost away from taxpayers. A new animal welfare agency would be created in the 'basement' of City Hall and all shelters would be kill-free and offer free spay and neuter programs under a Sliwa administration. The ACC has three active sites across the five boroughs with more than 1,000 animals in its care. 5 New York City Mayor Eric Adams speaks at a press conference to announce that 200 rescues have been made through the NYPD's drone and enforcement operations targeting subway surfing on July 21, 2025 in New York City. Andrew Schwartz / Advertisement 5 A new animal welfare agency would be created in the 'basement' of City Hall and all shelters would be kill-free and offer free spay and neuter programs under a Sliwa administration. Stephen Yang While the ACC is mandated to have a location in each of the five boroughs, the Brooklyn location is currently closed till 2026 for renovations, and the Bronx resource center has been 'temporarily' closed since May. Another $92 million facility in The Bronx is still under construction even though it was slated to open in the spring. The ACC did not respond to a Post request for comment. Adams' campaign did not respond to a request for comment, either.
NBC News
21 minutes ago
- NBC News
The next big health care fight that's splitting Republicans: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. Happy Friday! In today's edition, Sahil Kapur notes that a looming Obamacare deadline is dividing Republicans on Capitol Hill. Plus, Kristen Welker breaks down the political fallout thus far from the Jeffrey Epstein saga. And Scott Bland answers this week's reader question on Texas Republicans' redistricting efforts. — Adam Wollner The next big health care fight that's splitting Republicans By Sahil Kapur After passing President Donald Trump's sweeping megabill that included steep cuts to Medicaid, Republicans have another big health care fight on their hands. GOP leaders are facing growing calls from their members to extend a bucket of funding for the Affordable Care Act that is set to expire at the end of this year as some look to avert insurance premium hikes and millions of Americans losing their health coverage. But the cause faces opposition from conservatives who detest Obamacare and don't want to lift a finger to protect it. Some argue it'd be too expensive to continue the premium tax credits, which cost over $30 billion per year and were initially adopted as part of a Covid-19 response. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that about 5 million Americans will lose their insurance by 2034 if the money expires. The divide: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who represents a swing district that Trump lost in 2024, said that Congress should continue those ACA tax credits in order to avoid price increases. 'I think we gotta be doing everything to keep costs low across the board — health care, groceries, energy, all of the above. So I am currently working on addressing that as we speak,' he said. But Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., the chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said he 'absolutely' wants that funding to end. 'It'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Can't afford it,' he said. 'That was a Covid-era policy. Newsflash to America: Covid is over.' For now, top Republican leaders are keeping their powder dry about whether — or how — they will take up the issue. 'I think that goes to the end of the calendar year, so we'll have discussion about the issue later. But it hasn't come up yet,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said when asked about an ACA subsidy extension. 'But it's on the radar.' A midterm warning: Veteran GOP pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward recently released a memo warning that extending the health care tax credits is broadly popular, even with 'solid majorities of Trump voters and [s]wing voters.' They warned that the GOP will pay a 'political penalty' in the competitive districts in the 2026 midterm elections if the funding expires on schedule. Analysis by Kristen Welker The Jeffrey Epstein saga is the political headache that won't go away for President Donald Trump, as the drip-drip of new reporting on his past relationship with the convicted sex offender and repeated attempts to deflect have only fed the story. It's the first time we've really seen Trump's base break with him to this degree. Even though the impulse to rally around their leader remains as each new story breaks, no matter how Trump tries to change the subject, the calls for his administration to release more information from the Epstein files are only growing louder. The issue transcends politics — it's a devastating reminder of the victims of the crimes committed by Epstein and those who enabled him. As far as how it's playing out on Capitol Hill, Democrats and even some Republicans are trying to hold the Trump administration's feet to the fire. Both parties believe the GOP could pay a political price on the issue as they look to defend their congressional majorities in next year's midterms. That includes Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., one of our guests on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday. 'People will become apathetic again. They'll say, we elected President Trump. We gave him a majority in the House and the Senate, and they couldn't even release evidence of an underage sex trafficking ring. They couldn't even bring themselves to release that. I thought we were the party of family values, and I guess we're not,' Massie said this week on the 'Redacted' podcast. And Democrats, including Rep. Ro Khanna of California — another one of our guests this Sunday — argue the issue has salience on multiple fronts. They note it divides Trump and his base while also making a relatively popular appeal for transparency, one piece of a broader Democratic line of attack that the administration isn't being open with the American people. While it's unsurprising that Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of how the Trump administration is handling the Epstein files, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 71% of independents disapprove, too. And Republicans are about evenly divided, with 40% approving and 36% disapproving of the administration's handling of the issue. The political cost for Republicans isn't clear yet. Will it depress the enthusiasm of voters Republicans are scrambling to motivate to turn out with Trump not on the ballot? Will it force the party onto the defense at a time where it needs to be cementing public sentiment about its landmark tax cuts and spending bill, which Democrats are already weaponizing as a key midterm issue? Could Democrats overplay their hand if it overshadows their message on the most important issue to many voters, the economy? We'll discuss this and more on this Sunday's 'Meet the Press.' In addition to Khanna and Massie, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will also be joining us. Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on Republicans' attempts to draw new congressional maps in Texas. 'Is it legal what Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans want to do for Trump?' To answer that, we turned to senior politics editor Scott Bland. Here's his response: Redistricting happens every decade after the decennial census, so that each state has representation in the House of Representatives reflecting its official population and each district in a state has the same number of people in it. But this isn't the first time someone has moved to change the maps mid-decade. In fact, this isn't even the first time it's happened in Texas. In 2002, Texas Republicans gained full control of the state Legislature, and they decided the following year to draw a new map to replace a court-drawn one that had been imposed for that decade — and to increase the GOP advantage in the state. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,' Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters at the time. What flies in Texas doesn't necessarily fly everywhere, though. Colorado Republicans also tried to redraw maps in their state in 2003, but the state Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution forbade revisiting the maps more than once per decade. While Democrats are eager to fight back against the GOP's effort to draw more red seats in Texas, such obstacles could stand in their way. As New York Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs told Politico this week, 'I understand those in New York who are watching what's happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage.' But, he added, 'The [state] Constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years.'
