Red-Flag Laws Are the Answer

The full horror of Wednesday’s mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, will take time to unspool. At least 18 people were shot dead and 13 injured at a restaurant and bowling alley by a perpetrator who is still on the loose. Americans are by now grimly familiar with such scenes. They can and should demand better.

In the weeks ahead, the life of alleged gunman Robert Card — still just a “person of interest” in the case — will be closely scrutinized. Early reports say he’s 40 years old and recently out of a job. He was also a firearms instructor in the Army Reserve. Then there’s this: He was committed to a mental-health facility earlier this year after “hearing voices” and making “threats to shoot up” a military base.

That’s the thing about such killers. There are almost always warning signs.

A study of mass-shooting incidents over nearly six decades found that about 30% of the perpetrators had experienced psychotic symptoms. Most were suicidal and had expressed a pointed interest in previous shootings. Crucially: Almost all showed signs of crisis before they acted — often to the point of revealing their plans ahead of time on social media.

This tendency is one reason policymakers have gravitated toward “red-flag” laws in recent years. Such statutes typically allow law enforcement or a family member of someone deemed dangerous to petition a judge for what’s known as an extreme risk protection order, which prevents the subject from buying guns and allows police to confiscate any already in his possession. Twenty-one states and the nation’s capital have so far passed such laws, while several others are considering them.

Early evidence suggests they have significant potential. A study of Connecticut’s red-flag policy credited it with preventing at least one death for every 10 to 20 times it was used, mostly by impeding gun suicides. Indiana’s statute had a similar effect. A California study of 21 red-flag cases — in which most of the subjects had made explicit threats and owned firearms — found that no mass shootings or other violence had occurred after the guns were confiscated.

These laws aren’t perfect. They sometimes suffer from inartful drafting or poor implementation. Maine’s much-criticized version — known as a “yellow-flag” law — has only been invoked a handful of times, partly because it requires an involuntary detention. Yet as public awareness grows and procedures improve, there’s reason to hope such statutes will become more effective. Following a shooting in Buffalo in 2022 — by a disturbed young man who had made previous threats, yet had not had his guns taken — protection orders soared to 4,257, from 538 the year before.

Even ardent Second Amendment defenders should agree that the Robert Cards of the world have no business accessing firearms. Red-flag laws pose no risk to sane and lawful gun owners. They’re accompanied by substantial due-process provisions in every state. They’re also supported by more than three-quarters of Americans, including most gun owners and most Republicans. In landmark legislation last year, Congress even doled out $750 million to help states put them in place.

In short: There should be no excuses for failing to pass such laws. If any good is to come from this latest tragedy, perhaps it will be in hammering that message home.

More From Bloomberg Opinion: