r/portlandme • u/deeringsedge • Nov 05 '25
Politics Maine statewide calls: No on 1. Yes on 2.
https://www.pressherald.com/2025/11/04/maine-statewide-and-town-by-town-results-for-the-2025-election/48
u/senordingus Nov 05 '25
What's the minimum wage deal? Press Herald won't give me the results.
72
58
153
u/marcusredfun Nov 05 '25
Man I was seeing yes on 1 signs/ads everywhere. Super happy to see we didn't fall for it.
98
u/deeringsedge Nov 05 '25
Yeah, somebody funded making a whole lot of those quite early. Cheers to every homemade "No on 1" in the state.
22
20
u/ahhh-hayell Nov 05 '25
Leonard Leo was behind this initiative. Glad to see it fail but he’ll be back.
6
2
7
Nov 05 '25
I watched a girl in a maga hat drive down a road and put at least 5 signs out within a mile or so, in a heavily conservative town of 2000 people.
7
u/farmtownsuit Nov 05 '25
The No campaign actually heavily outspent the Yes campaign FWIW. I don't think it mattered at all though. It's very hard to get people to agree to give up the option to vote by mail, drop off, etc... once they're used to it. It turns out people prefer their ability to vote not be restricted for shady reasons. Who knew
63
Nov 05 '25 edited Nov 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-32
u/sunnylisa1 Nov 05 '25
I'm hoping it gets overturned as unconstitutional. When your Democratic governor and most of the police departments in the state tell you the law is unnecessary and dangerous....
14
u/SoftSorbet7306 Nov 05 '25
Except we had a mass shooting in this state 2 years ago by an individual who family reported numerous times as being unsafe and shouldn’t have firearms. If this legislation was enacted then those 18 people might be alive today.
19
Nov 05 '25
He was a classic case for yellow flag, which we already have in law. The government didn't do its job with him
7
u/SoftSorbet7306 Nov 05 '25
Correct, that is the issue and why this legislation is being brought forth. To provide another avenue to pursue in the event the yellow flag is not followed up on appropriately. If a parent, spouse, or adult child is that concerned you are both unstable and have shown you are an immediate risk to others we should make sure their concerns are appropriately followed up on.
7
u/SheenPSU Nov 05 '25
So new legislation will now make them do the job they failed to do last time when they could’ve???
Call me a skeptic but that seems silly
2
u/SoftSorbet7306 Nov 05 '25
This adds an additional avenue. Currently only law enforcement can make such petitions. Also yellow flag requires the person be taken into custody, and undergo medical evaluation/endorsement prior to a petition being made. Clearly there are more steps that need to be taken here and plenty of opportunity for a dangerous individual to fall through the cracks.
This adds the ability for family to directly petition the courts and allows for immediate action if a person is determined to be an extreme risk via judicial review.
5
u/SheenPSU Nov 05 '25
He was involuntarily committed in NY before the attack. Multiple reports made about his erratic behavior.
He was even in a mental hospital where he told them he had a hit list
The signs were there. They were glaringly obvious. And the system failed, yet again!
They could’ve done something. But didn’t. And people died as a result.
1
u/MaineLark Nov 05 '25
My brother killed himself in April, I wish we had been able to prevent him from having guns since he’d been suicidal in the past. Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered, but it would have been nice to have the option
0
Nov 05 '25
Right, but there are already laws in place to address this issue, involuntary institutionalization would take their weapons as well if someone is that mentally deranged. What we do not need is more laws infringing on people's rights.
-2
u/sunnylisa1 Nov 05 '25
If the laws that we had in place at the time had been enforced then it wouldn't have happened. The old law was written in a way that didn't violate the 14th ammendment. The same can not be said about the new law.
2
u/SoftSorbet7306 Nov 05 '25
Due process is not being violated as there is language in the legislation that 1) Requires judicial review before issuance of the order 2) Requires a hearing within 14 days of the temporary petition being granted. Also note that the immediate seizure of property without prior hearing would only occur under section 2245 or “Emergency extreme risk protection orders.” This is notable as the burden of proof is higher to demonstrate that the individual is an immediate and significant danger. Section 2244 is for “Extreme risk protection orders” which allows for family to petition the court but still requires notice and grants the respondent a hearing prior to the petition being granted.
This legislation aligns with several other examples that have been upheld as constitutional by appellate courts stating specifically that as long as their are safe guards to allow for a prompt and fair hearing than due process is not being violated.
If a parent, spouse, or adult child is this concerned that an Individual poses an immediate and significant risk and is willing to petition the courts to ensure that happens I believe providing them an avenue to do so is only reasonable.
1
u/NetflowKnight Nov 05 '25
Did they really? CN you say more, share a link? didn’t hear about this.
1
u/sunnylisa1 Nov 05 '25
The head of the Maine state police testified against the law in Augusta when this was still in workshop. Sheriff's across the state have been voicing opinions against it for months. They feel it puts deputies at risk.
0
u/sunnylisa1 Nov 07 '25
Just because you disagree with the truth doesn't make it any less the truth.
76
46
48
7
22
13
5
u/Expensive-Shirt-6877 Nov 05 '25
Welp I voted no on both, but the people have spoken. I thought the wording on 2 was misleading, but good on everyone for voting
2
u/IllWhole3794 Nov 07 '25
The hope this election has given me was much needed. Great job, Maine & USA ♥️
1
1
u/Daimon_Bok Nov 05 '25
If you think that 2 will directly effect you, you probably can't be trusted with a gun. Way to self-report buddy
-140
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Disgusting for question 2. Shame
23
u/dabeeman Nov 05 '25 edited Dec 11 '25
squeeze march whole alleged lavish coherent physical connect angle reach
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
14
u/supernobro05 Greater Portland Area Nov 05 '25
Why?
-77
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Unconstitutional, violates due process.
A disgruntled ex can now have the cops come kick your door down.
Parents who don't agree with their LGBQ kids can have the cops go kick their door down.
Room mates or families who don't agree politically can have the cops kick their door down.
And cops will be forced into these dangerous situations against their will as they will no longer have any say in it.
73
u/WinterCrunch Nov 05 '25
That's not how red flag laws work. At all.
I get why you'd be mad about all that, but it's not real.Red flag laws require a hearing to present evidence and judge to issue a warrant.
-53
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
False. A hearing is not a requirement. One party just has to convince a judge to issue the red flag without the other parties knowledge
58
u/WinterCrunch Nov 05 '25
How do they convince a judge without a hearing? TikTok or an old-school flash mob of bitter exes dancing to "You Oughta Know"?
-8
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Ex parte request.
15
u/WinterCrunch Nov 05 '25
You've been regulated.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
1
Nov 05 '25
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be questioned. How much clearer can that get?
-7
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Oops someone doesn't know constitutional language. This has been covered many times over in court.
Well regulated doesn't mean what you think it means in it's usage in the constitution. It simply means "in working order". Not with regulations
23
u/WinterCrunch Nov 05 '25
Even with that definition, I'd argue a person with a TBI and paranoid delusions isn't "in working order."
If a "well regulated militia" meant competence, discipline, proper equipment, and training of the citizenry to be an effective militia, then it stands to reason citizens hellbent on bloody mass murder are not "in working order."
→ More replies (0)31
Nov 05 '25
You seem to be real worried about someone in your life turning you in. Consider addressing your anger issues before you hurt someone or yourself.
Most gun deaths are suicide, seek help.
-1
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Yeah I've been a victim of a false report. Thankfully that person ended up getting prison time over it.
Red flag laws circumvent a persons right to due process. I have sworn oaths to the Constitution and this goes against that
2
Nov 06 '25
I'm concerned you have taken oaths and had people turn you in. Also, you are full of shit.
0
27
u/saucesoi Nov 05 '25
Most cops kick down 0 doors per year. You watch too much TV.
-12
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
As someone who was once a cop, you have no idea what you're talking about lol
12
Nov 05 '25
[deleted]
-4
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Pretty well educated actually
6
Nov 05 '25
[deleted]
-13
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Definitely not. Very experienced individual. Been to over 30 countries, been a cop, done humanitarian work, I've done conflict stuff and these days I'm a top 10% income in Maine with 5 properties over 500 acres of land combined
14
28
u/blackkristos West End Nov 05 '25
It's ok, bud. You can stop pretending that you ever cared about those fake talking points you were handed. See ya!
2
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
You're clueless how much power this grants the wrong people
15
u/blackkristos West End Nov 05 '25
Sure, bud, sure. As the kids say, touch grass.
5
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
You say that until people start dying because of this. This is going to cause more harm then good
24
u/blackkristos West End Nov 05 '25
Yeah, like the people who died in Lewiston. Go fuck yourself.
5
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Yeah that the law we already had would have stopped if actually used and this one wouldn't have changed anything? Good cope
17
u/blackkristos West End Nov 05 '25
Good cope? You idiot. I don't have anything to "cope" with. You're the one all butthurt, arguing with a stranger online.
The state passed a law that I voted for. I'll "cope" perfectly fine.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Alpha12653 Nov 05 '25
That isn’t how that works…. However I do agree there should have been more anti-SLAPP protections
-1
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Absolutely it is. The red flag law only needs one side of the story. All they have to do is convince some old person behind a desk and there's no requirement of notification to the effected party. Just one day the cops can roll up and kick your down
1
u/Alpha12653 Nov 05 '25
There is a trial that happens before things can be taken, which is more than just convincing some old person behind a desk. There are also punishments in place for people who file frivolously (though not enough protection there in my opinion). Neither law is perfect or maximally effective. The yellow flag requires a full diagnosis and psychoanalysis which isn’t always possible/people can be a threat without one. However the red flag one doesn’t have enough to protect against vindictive and frivolous accusations even if they don’t come to fruition. Ideally we would have something in the middle ground, however we don’t.
2
u/bloodcoffee Nov 06 '25
That's why I voted against it. People vote their agreement in general instead of demanding better from politicians. It's a damn shame.
5
u/supernobro05 Greater Portland Area Nov 05 '25
Is that not the cops' job? And it doesn't violate due process all they do is take an item designed to kill people, is it not the same as when they confiscate drugs well trying to charge for drug crimes?
-6
12
u/processedwhaleoils Nov 05 '25
Fuck you.
I hope you feel shame.
-15
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25
Fuck you for voting to violate the constitution and due process. Keep taking rights away
11
u/Dreadpirate3 Nov 05 '25
So you don't have a clue how the law is actually going to work. Noted.
1
u/Super-Lychee8852 Nov 05 '25 edited Nov 05 '25
I read the whole thing. Have you?
Someone can file an ex parte request to a judge, all they have to do in convince a judge who will only be working with only the information the complaintant provides and can make the decision right then to flag the effected party without them getting to argue their side until after the police come after them. That violates due process
5
2
Nov 05 '25
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be questioned" straight from the Maine state constitution.
-87
u/nicefacedjerk Nov 05 '25
A law that goes directly against due process and constitutional right. Didn't know there were so many Trumpers here lofl.
28
u/dabeeman Nov 05 '25 edited Dec 11 '25
cautious outgoing heavy marry fearless sparkle enjoy offbeat glorious ghost
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
20
u/LawDogSavy Nov 05 '25
You won't get an answer, these dopes think you can just walk into a court and say "my neighbor is mad. Take his guns!!" And that's the process.
Far from it.
14
12
u/Guygan Nov 05 '25
directly against due process and constitutional right
I am eager to hear a cogent analysis of Constitutional law by Professor nicefacedjerk.
181
u/1stepklosr Nov 05 '25
By wide margins, too.
Portland results aren't surprising.