The individual would have to surrender any firearms to a law enforcement official for 21 days. Before the order expires, the court must hold a hearing — during which the gun owner can speak on their own behalf — to determine whether a one-year gun violence restraining order should be issued.
I keep hearing about things like this getting suggested and its so difficult to speak against it without sounding like you are proponent of someone who intends to harm someone but only because that seems to be the way the media pushes this conversation. I personally do not support anyone who intends to harm someone else but this doesn't change the fact that you cannot convict someone of a crime that hasn't been committed based on what you think they might do. Even if we disregard the obvious slippery slope argument of who gets to decide and the ambiguity of the criteria, its still an action that goes against the principle of our justice system which is a man is innocent until proven guilty. Last I checked, you need a victim to have a crime.
Whats even more interesting to me is that the editorial suggests that one of the factors that could lead to this unlawful disarming of a citizen is a "history of violating protection-from-abuse orders or a felony arrest record." This begs the question or questions: Does the criminal justice system in Maine not properly punish people with a history of violating protection-from-abuse orders and/or felons? Does Maine allow convicted felons to have guns in the first place?
This makes it even more ironic that the editorial links to this study of domestic violence leading to femicide:
One of the results of that study points out that prior domestic violence arrests were "associated with lowered risks" of femicide from domestic violence. I am no expert at interpreting analysis BUT i'll take a gander here and speculate that this lowered risk by people who were previously arrested for domestic violence is twofold. 1. If someone is arrested and convicted of a felonious act they will probably find it difficult to obtain a firearm after that. 2. Jail is a consequence of a crime. Someone who understands the potential of this consequence based on a previous experience could be less likely to commit another crime.
I can't help but think this editorial and the study it is based on points more to the need for tougher punishment for offenders. Maybe cops have a hard time arresting someone for beating his girlfriend if she refuses to press charges. Maybe you propose legislation that gives the police more leeway to arrest those suspects instead of giving them the ability to disarm law abiding citizens on a whim.
Lastly and its a little superfluous to my opinion of the editorial I feel I must point out its introduction in which the author says:
...Maine's murder rate is among the lowest in the country. But there’s one crime-related category in which we consistently outpace many other states: More than half of the homicides here each year are domestic violence-related, while the national average is around 30 percent.
I have some good news for the author. If you guys in Maine are doing something right and your violent crime rate of some type is consistently low, it makes sense that you will have a higher percentage of some other type. So asserting that half of your low murder rate is domestic violence is meaningless. If you don't understand what I mean by this ill help you. Lets pretend for the year 2016 that you have only one murder and that it is lets say...a drug deal gone wrong. The good news will be that you only had one murder for 2016. The bad news will be that 100 percent of your murder rate will be from bad drug deals. Does this make you the bad drug deal capital of the world? Get it? I knew that you could!