With the Democrat-controlled Senate in Maine still refusing to hold a public hearing on a "red flag" referendum that will be on state ballots this November, Second Amendment organizations are vowing to take their fight to court. State statute requires the legislature to hold a public hearing on ballot measures before Election Day, but Senate President Ann Carney contends that because the state Constitution doesn't say anything about a hearing, state law can be disregarded without consequence.

That authoritarian attempt to muzzle opponents of the measure isn't sitting well with gun owners. And to my surprise, even some supporters of the "red flag" proposal, like columnist Douglas Rooks, are taking issue with the legislature's attempt to ignore state law. 

Rooks claims to believe that a "red flag" statute would actually be less restrictive than the "yellow flag" law that's currently in place, though I think his argument is wildly off the mark. 

Unfortunately, this state and nation still have the weakest gun safety laws of any major democracy, but the “red flag” would infringe any perceived right far less than the “yellow flag,” which allows police to lock up anyone they suspect of being dangerous. The “red flag” affects only the firearm, not the person.

Gun rights groups, by their continued opposition to a red flag law, seem to value the possession of a firearm more than the liberty of the owner.

Wrong. As I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of Maine's "yellow flag" statute either, but it a) offers more due process protections than a "red flag" statute and b) is aimed at addressing the dangerousness of a particular individual, rather than any particular item they might own. 

I quoted Rooks just so you know that I'm not pretending that he's a big fan of the proposed "red flag" law. He'd love to see the referendum approved by voters this fall. But while his reasons for objecting to lawmakers refusing to hold a public hearing on the referendum may differ from the objections of groups like the National Rifle Association, Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, and Gun Owners of Maine, it's worth noting that folks on both sides of the "red flag" debate find it unconscionable that Maine Democrats are refusing to abide by state law. 

As he writes, Carney's excuse for not holding a hearing is "sheer nonsense".

Just because the Constitution doesn’t mention a specific provision doesn’t mean upholding the law becomes optional, for legislators or anyone else. Carney’s assertion – by a practicing attorney, no less – comes dangerously close to providing cover for numerous illegal actions by the current president, who thinks laws about federal employee tenure, deportations and Congress’s “power of the purse” can be ignored whenever he likes. 

A subsequent comment by House Chair Amy Kuhn (D-Falmouth) that Republicans hadn’t objected when the matter came up earlier is also beside the point. All bills filed in the first session must receive public hearings or be carried over – not possible for an initiated bill – unless two-thirds of both chambers agree to a waiver.

Carney and Kuhn made no move to seek a waiver, producing a vow by Republicans to file a lawsuit – a case Democrats controlling the Legislature would almost certainly lose.

Rooks also believes that the intransigence of Democratic lawmakers is also going to hurt the "red flag" referendum when voters do get a chance to weigh in at the ballot box, arguing that "since hearings on such bills are routine – though frequently loud and long – voters may well wonder if there’s something wrong with the bill."

And they'd be right to do so. The "red flag" proponents in the legislature don't want a public hearing because they're afraid it would hurt their cause. They don't want to give opponents like Gov. Janet Mills a platform to detail the flaws in the proposed Extreme Risk Protection Order statute, or why she believes the current "yellow flag" law is a better way to address dangerous individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.