As the fallout deepens from the catastrophic mass shootings in Lewiston, Maine, that left at least 18 people dead and many wounded, questions are being asked about how an army reservist who had threatened violence and was kept under observation this summer for erratic behavior was allowed to be in possession of a deadly semi-automatic rifle.
Robert Card, 40, remained on the run on Thursday amid a massive manhunt. He was named as the suspect in the double shooting on Wednesday evening at a bowling alley and bar in Lewiston, a town of 40,000 people.
US army officials have described Card as an enlisted army reservist with an active military ID who specializes in petroleum supply. The army national guard told CNN that he began “behaving erratically” when stationed at a training camp in New York in July.
He talked of “hearing voices” and threatened other reservists, and according to separate reporting, also threatened to attack a national guard base in Maine. He was kept under medical evaluation, and out of concern for his safety law enforcement was contacted.
Despite these indications of problematic behavior, no attempt was made to confiscate weapons in Card’s possession. Gun control advocates argue that Maine’s weak gun laws, which are among the most lax in the country, could have contributed to the disaster.
Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, ranks Maine as the 25th state in the nation on the basis of the strength of its gun regulations. It concludes that “state leaders must do more to prevent gun violence”.
Unlike 21 other states, Maine, which prides itself on its libertarian and hunting traditions, does not have a “red flag” or “extreme risk protection order” law. Such provisions allow police to remove guns temporarily from people whose behavior suggests they may be a risk to themselves or others.
In 2019, lawmakers in Maine debated whether to introduce a red flag law but voted against it. Instead, they adopted a less effective “yellow flag” law which had been partly written by a local pro-gun organization, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.
The yellow flag statute allows for guns to be confiscated from individuals, but only after a doctor has evaluated the person and found them to be a threat. Gun control advocates say the need for a medical practitioner to be involved makes the protection much more cumbersome and harder to use.
Christian Heyne, chief policy and programs officer with the gun control advocacy group Brady: United Against Gun Violence, said that red flag laws focused on behavioral risk factors to predict potential violence such as past violent behavior and drug and alcohol abuse. He said that while industrialized countries had similar rates of mental illness, “America stands alone in our experience of gun violence”.
He added: “That’s because of the accessibility of these weapons, and our inability to make sure that we temporarily remove firearms from those most at risk of dangerous behavior.”
Heyne’s mother was killed and his father injured in a mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, in 2005. “So this is not a game, it’s real,” he said.
Opinion polls have shown that red flag laws enjoy wide popularity across the US. A Fox News poll from April found that 80% of voters approved of giving police the power to take guns from those considered a danger to themselves or others.
Studies have shown that red flag provisions do have the potential to intercept weapons before mass shootings occur. April Zeoli, director of the policy core of the University of Michigan’s institute for firearm injury prevention, has looked at six states with red flag laws.
A review of almost 7,000 extreme risk protection order petitions, brought mainly by law enforcement in those states, found that nearly 10% involved some kind of mass shooting threat. Of those, 50%, or 330 petitions, involved what Zeoli called “maximum casualty threats”, where the person showing the erratic behavior appeared to want to kill as many people as possible.
Zeoli said that Card’s threat to shoot up a national guard base might fit into the same “maximum casualty threat” category.
There is no way of telling whether any, or how many, of the 330 petitions that involved maximum casualty threats actually prevented mass shootings. “It could have been 10, it could have been one, it could have been 100, we don’t know,” Zeoli said.
But she added: “We do know that even if it’s two or three, that’s potentially dozens of lives that could be saved.”
