On Wednesday, Maine State Police Lt. Michael Johnston spoke before the Judiciary Committee regarding the gun control proposal Mainers will vote on in November, issuing what can only be described as devastating testimony for the far-left backers of the so-called “Red Flag” law.
[Listen to Lt. Johnston’s entire testimony above…]
Johnston, who is the MSP official responsible for training others on how to enforce Maine’s current “Yellow Flag” law, gave testimony that can be fairly summarized as: everything the supporters of this referendum are saying is inaccurate, and, in fact, this proposal would make domestic abuse victims and police less safe.
Perhaps that’s why Sen. Anne Carney (D-Cumberland) and Rep. Amy Kuhn (D-Falmouth), the chairs of the Judiciary Committee, attempted to circumvent the public hearing requirement — but were eventually shamed into abiding by the law.
“In the three and a half years before the Lewiston tragedy, there were just 81 yellow flag applications,” Johnston testified. “Since Lewiston? Over 800. The law is working — what are we trying to fix?”
Johnston’s calm but devastating cross-examination of the proposed gun-grab law dismantled its core premise: that family members need another legal tool to disarm someone they fear is dangerous. He said families already use the yellow flag process — and it's law enforcement, not legislators, who know how to handle these volatile situations.
Johnston pointed out that his own unit has handled over 50 yellow flag cases and that, statewide, Maine law enforcement has filed 881 successful petitions since the law went into effect. The red flag law, he warned, would sidestep the existing process and create dangerous new situations for both police and the public.
Under the current yellow flag system, a person in crisis is taken into protective custody, evaluated by medical professionals, and only then can weapons be removed. That crucial step — the medical assessment — is skipped under the proposed red flag law, which allows weapons to be seized based solely on a civil court order.
“This would have officers serving firearm removal orders to people found dangerous by a judge, without ever having met them,” Johnston warned. “That’s a recipe for disaster.”
“This Bill Solves a Problem That Doesn’t Exist”
In one of the most searing moments of the hearing, Johnston challenged lawmakers to explain what the new bill could possibly accomplish that the existing system doesn’t already handle.
“I’m not sure what this bill seeks to prevent that is not already covered by Title 17A, Title 19A, Title 5, and the yellow flag statute under Title 34B,” he said.
He also raised the alarm about the confusion the red flag bill could create by overlapping with Maine’s existing domestic violence and harassment protection laws.
“Are victims supposed to file a red flag? A protection from abuse order? Both?” Johnston asked. “This doesn’t add clarity — it muddies the waters.”
Johnston didn’t just attack the bill’s policy failures — he flagged serious legal and tactical flaws that could put officers in the crosshairs, literally.
Unlike yellow flag cases, where law enforcement can intervene in a hospital setting and work collaboratively with families, the red flag bill would send officers directly into potentially hostile homes, with no prior contact or de-escalation.
“We’re not arresting them, we’re not taking them into custody — we’re just showing up to take their guns,” Johnston said. “That’s when people dig in.”
He added that the bill would require cops — not prosecutors — to act as court litigants, filing petitions and appearing at hearings to defend them. “That’s lawyer work,” he quipped. “And we’re not lawyers.”
“If this bill passes,” Johnston cautioned, “expect more high-risk confrontations, more strain on small-town police forces, and a whole lot more confusion.”
Share this post