Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, also known as red flag laws or gun violence restraining order laws, authorize family members, household members, or law enforcement officers to petition a court to restrict an individual's access to firearms. If the court finds that the person presents a danger to self or others, the person must surrender firearms to law enforcement officials and is prohibited from buying, selling, or possessing firearms for a certain amount of time.[1][2] Partly as a result of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting on February 14, 2018, interest in extreme risk protection orders grew.[3] Five states had extreme risk protection order laws prior to 2018. During 2018 legislative sessions, eight states enacted such laws, and another two states considered bills.
As of the same date, six states—Texas, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming—had enacted laws that prevent or restrict the adoption of extreme-risk protection orders. These anti-red flag laws prohibit or limit courts from temporarily seizing the firearms of an individual who is believed to present a danger to others or themselves.[4] All six were controlled by Republican trifectas at the time of adoption.
Support and opposition
Arguments in favor
Supporters of extreme risk protection orders believe the orders can be used as a tool to prevent violence and save lives.
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund are both 501(c)(3) organizations that describe their mission as to save lives and reduce gun violence. The Giffords Law Center described extreme risk protection orders as "lifesaving tools that can prevent gun tragedies before they occur" and argued that the laws were "being used to prevent mass shootings, suicides, terrorism, and other types of gun violence." The Everytown For Gun Safety Support Fund wrote on their website, "When a person is in crisis, loved ones and law enforcement are often the first to see the warning signs. ERPO laws empower family members and law enforcement to petition for an order that temporarily removes guns from a dangerous situation and reduces the risk of suicide."[1][5][6][7]
In response to arguments that extreme risk protection orders violate the right to due process, the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund pointed to provisions in extreme risk protection order laws allowing individuals subject to the order to appear in court for a full legal hearing.[1][6] The Alliance for Gun Responsibility—a group that supported Initiative 1491, a 2016 ballot measure in Washington state on whether courts should be authorized to issue extreme risk protection orders—argued that extreme risk protection orders included "careful protections for due process and standards for evidence."[8]
Arguments against
Opponents of extreme risk protection orders argue that they violate Second Amendment rights, that existing laws already provide ways to respond to situations addressed in ERPO legislation, and that ERPOs do not provide mechanisms to deal with underlying causes of danger or threat.
The National Rifle Association criticized Washington state's 2016 ballot measure for allowing "persons who have no specific expertise, and who may be mistaken" to seek extreme risk protection orders. Regarding ex parte orders—orders issued immediately—the NRA said, "In that context, a person's rights disappear merely on the say-so of someone else," adding, "This law would be ripe for abuse by individuals that disagree with the Second Amendment, and the mere insinuation that gun ownership makes you a danger to yourself or others is offensive and insulting."[9]
The website The Truth About Guns wrote, "Judges can issue an ERPO—the unconstitutional artist formerly known as a GRVO or Gun Violence Restraining Order — without any testimony from the accused. In other words, the accused is denied his or her Sixth Amendment protected rights." The article additionally questioned if the effectiveness of extreme risk protection orders was "worth the loss of a Constitutionally protected civil right," adding, "Not only does an ERPO do nothing to help suicidal or homicidal citizens — who can find other means to kill themselves or others — it disarms citizens who may face a lethal threat from a dangerously disaffected spouse, former spouse or family member, or a corrupt or crazy cop."[10]
Legislation by state
The table and map below display the states that have enacted extreme risk protection order legislation, or legislation prohibiting the use of ERPOs, and partisan control of state government at the time. The table also includes the year which each state first enacted such a law.
California's law, known as the Gun Violence Restraining Order law, was signed on September 30, 2014, by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and went into effect in January 2016. The law allows family members and law enforcement to petition the court if they believe someone poses a threat to themselves or others. If a judge issues an order, the individual deemed a threat is prohibited from possessing or purchasing firearms, generally for a 21-day period.[11]
The law was passed after a man shot 10 people, hit seven people with his car, and stabbed three others before shooting himself in Isla Vista, California, on May 23, 2014. A report from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office indicated that law enforcement officers had been in contact with the shooter before the killings, including a meeting instituted by the shooter's mother, and stated that the officers had no legal authority to conduct searches or seize weapons.[12][13][14]
In 2018, Assemblyman Phil Ting (D) introduced AB 2888, which would have expanded California's 2014 law to authorize an employer, coworker, or school employee, in addition to family members and law enforcement, to petition the court to issue a gun violence restraining order.[15]
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 2888 September 26. In his veto message, Brown said, "All of the persons named in this bill can seek a gun violence restraining order today under existing law by simply working through law enforcement or the immediate family of the concerning individual. I think law enforcement professionals and those closest to a family member are best situated to make these especially consequential decisions." The bill passed the state Assembly 46-23 May 21 and the state Senate 25-12 August 28.[16][17]
Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed HB 1177 on April 11, 2019. According to the bill summary, the law established "the ability for a family or household member or a law enforcement officer to petition the court for a temporary extreme risk protection order (ERPO) beginning January 1, 2020."[18]
Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed SB170 into law on April 28, 2023. The law expands the definition of who can petition for an extreme risk protection order to include "licensed medical care providers, licensed mental health-care providers, licensed educators, and district attorneys."[19]
In 1999, Connecticut enacted the first extreme risk protection order law in the United States. It authorized a state's attorney, assistant state's attorney, or two law enforcement officers, to submit a complaint to a Superior Court judge asserting probable cause that a person posed a risk to him- or herself or to others and that the person possessed and could access firearms. The law directed the judge to consider certain factors when deciding whether to issue an order, such as whether the person had committed recent acts of violence, made threats, or committed acts of cruelty to animals. The law mandated that a hearing should be held within 14 days of the order's issuance to consider whether to confiscate the firearms for up to one year or return them to the owner. The law was passed after a shooting in 1998 in which a Connecticut Lottery accountant shot four people before shooting himself.[20]
In 2021, Connecticut amended its red flag laws through HB 6355. Among other changes, the bill expanded who is eligible to petition for an extreme risk protection order to include family and household members of the individual subject to the order, as well as medical professionals. The bill also added assistant state's attorneys to those eligible to conduct an investigation into the subject of an ERPO petition to determine the merit of the complaint.[21]
In 2023, Connecticut removed a requirement that two police officers attest to probable cause for the issuance of a risk protection order through HB 6877. The law amended the requirement to state that a single police office may attest to such probable cause. The bill also grants police officers, state's attorneys, and assistant state's attorneys increased leeway in determining whether or not to pursue a protection order against an individual. Police officers and sheriffs in the state said that the previous requirement that multiple police officers attest to the probable cause for the need for an ERPO had created a burden on law enforcement resources as the number of ERPO petitions increased.[22]
Democratic Gov. John Carney signed HB 302 on April 30, 2018. It passed unanimously in both chambers—on March 27, 2018, in the state House and on April 24, 2018, in the state Senate. According to the Delaware General Assembly website, HB 302 "is designed to create procedures in Delaware for making sure firearms are not in the hands of dangerous individuals while protecting due process and not creating a barrier to care for those suffering from mental illness."[23] The bill allows law enforcement officers to seize firearms from individuals deemed by a mental health worker and by a court to be a danger to themselves or others. It also expands the list of individuals prohibited from owning a firearm to include those charged with a violent crime but found not guilty by reason of insanity, guilty but mentally ill, or ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial.[24]
On June 27, 2018, Gov. John Carney (D) signed HB 222, which authorizes family members, in addition to law enforcement and mental health professionals, to petition the court for an extreme risk protection order.[25] The bill passed with bipartisan support in the state House on June 7 and the state Senate on June 19.
2025
Status: Signed into law
On August 20, 2025, Gov. Matt Meyer (D) signed Senate Bill 82, which increase the duration of an extreme risk protection order from one year to five years.[26]
Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed into law Senate Bill 7026, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, on March 9, 2018. The bill passed 20-18 in the Florida State Senate and 67-50 in the Florida House of Representatives. The legislation included provisions regarding firearm safety, school safety, and mental health, among others. It created a process for law enforcement to petition courts for a risk protection order to prevent individuals deemed to pose an extreme risk to themselves or others from accessing firearms. The bill was in response to a school shooting on February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 people dead.
On July 1, 2019, Gov. David Ige (D) signed SB 1466. Prior to signing the legislation, Ige said, "I think all of us in our community believe that one tragic event is one too many, and as we've seen gun violence across the country happening over and over again in instances of schools being involved, it's very, very heart-wrenching. I think that it's common sense to allow us to temporarily prevent these individuals from having access to firearms and ammunition. It does not take away their basic right to own a gun, but it does, on behalf of our community, allow us to temporarily take away one's right to gun ownership."[27]
Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) signed HB 2354 on July 16, 2018.[28] The Illinois House of Representatives approved the legislation by an 80-32 vote on May 23, 2018. The Illinois State Senate voted 43-11 in favor of the bill on May 30, 2018. HB 2354 authorized family members or law enforcement officials to petition the court to confiscate firearms from individuals deemed dangerous to themselves or others. A press release from bill sponsor Sen. Julie Morrison (D) explained, "If a judge finds clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a danger, the court can require firearms to be temporarily removed from the respondent’s possession."[29]
Indiana enacted an extreme risk protection order law in 2004 following the shooting of five police officers which resulted in one fatality. Indiana's law authorized law enforcement to remove firearms from individuals deemed dangerous through two mechanisms: (1) with a warrant and (2) without a warrant. Under the law, circuit court or superior court judges can issue a warrant for the seizure of firearms if law enforcement officers provide a sworn affidavit:
stating why the officers think the person is dangerous and in possession of a firearm,
describing the officer's interactions with the person, and
describing the location of the firearm.
The judge must determine there is probable cause to believe the individual is dangerous and possesses a firearm before issuing a warrant.
The law also allows officers to seize firearms without a warrant, in which case they are required to submit a written statement to the circuit or superior court explaining the officer's belief that the individual is dangerous. *In both cases (with or without a warrant), the court must conduct a hearing within 14 days, at which time the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is dangerous. An individual whose firearms are seized can petition the court to return the weapons after 180 days.[20]
Gov. Larry Hogan (R) signed HB 1302 on April 24, 2018. The legislation passed the state House on March 12, 2018, by a 116-17 vote, and the state Senate on April 1, 2018, by a 31-13 vote. The bill created extreme risk protection orders, allowing law enforcement to petition judges to issue an order that individuals deemed dangerous to themselves or others surrender their firearms to law enforcement.[31] The bill was in response to a school shooting on February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 people dead.
Gov. Charlie Baker (R) signed H 4670 on July 3, 2018. The Massachusetts State Legislature approved the legislation on June 28, 2018. H 4670 allows household members and local law enforcement officers to petition a court to issue an extreme risk protection order, removing firearms from individuals deemed dangerous. Once a petition is filed, the court must hold a hearing within 10 days. If a judge finds an individual presents a danger to themselves or others, the individual must surrender their weapons and firearms license. An ERPO can last for up to one year. Baker said in a statement, "This law creates a responsible way to help prevent gun deaths and suicides while protecting individuals’ second amendment rights."[32]
The bill had the support of the state's police chiefs.[33]
The Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) opposed the bill, saying it had "due process problems." Bill sponsor Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem (D) said, "We're not changing the 2nd Amendment, we're not doing anything drastic. All we're doing is making restrictions on those that should not be using guns."[34]
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed SB83 into law on May 23, 2023. The law, known as the Extreme Risk Protection Orders Act, establishes the ability for a number of defined individuals to "file an action in the family division of the circuit court requesting the court to enter an extreme risk protection order."[35] As defined by the bill, those who may file such an action are:
Someone in a "dating relationship" with the subject of the order
A family member or guardian
A healthcare provider
A law enforcement agency or officer
The Michigan House of Representatives approved the bill 56-51 on April 13, 2023, and the Michigan State Senate voted 20-17 to pass the legislation on April 19.[35] The bill emerged and gained support in response to a school shooting on February 14, 2018, at Oxford High School in Oxford, Michigan, when 15-year-old student carried out a mass shooting, killing four other students and injuring six students and a teacher, and to a shooting on February 12, 2023 at Michigan State University in Lansing, Michigan , when a 43-year-old individual killed three students and injured five others in a mass shooting on the University's campus.[36][37][38]
Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed SF2909 into law on May 19, 2023. The law establishes a legal action known as a "petition for an extreme risk protection order," which "shall enjoin and prohibit the respondent from possessing or purchasing firearms for as long as the order remains in effect."[39] The law provides that a petition may be made by "the chief law enforcement officer, the chief law enforcement officer's designee, a city or county attorney, any family or household members of the respondent, or a guardian," and the petition "shall allege that the respondent poses a significant danger of bodily harm to other persons or is at significant risk of suicide by possessing a firearm.""[39]
Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed HB 809 into law on May 8, 2025. The bill said, "A local government may not: enact, adopt, or implement a resolution, ordinance, rule, regulation, or policy that would have the effect of enforcing an extreme risk protection order against a resident of the state; or (b) accept a grant or other source of funding for the purpose of aiding in the adoption, implementation, or enforcement of an extreme risk protection order."[40]
On July 1, 2019, Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) signed Assembly Bill 291. At the signing of the legislation, Sisolak said, "This is going to go a long way towards keeping our community safer. It's reasonable."[41]
Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed A 1217 on June 13, 2018. The New Jersey State Assembly passed A 1217 59-12 on March 26, 2018, and the New Jersey State Senate approved the bill 32-5 on June 7, 2018. A 1217 authorizes courts to issue protective orders to individuals deemed to pose a significant risk of injury to themselves or others through the use of a firearm. The order prohibits the individual from possessing or obtaining a firearm license or a firearm.[42]
On February 25, 2020, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed SB 5. At the signing of the legislation, Lujan Girsham said, "If we can make a difference for one person, that’s the right difference to make. We know this is a meaningful tool to address gun violence."[43]
2025
Status: Signed into law
On March 21, 2025, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signed House Bill 12, which explicitly allows police offices to file petitions seeking extreme risk protection orders and requires the subject of an extreme risk protection order to immediately relinquish their firearms upon being served with the order.[44]
New York
2019
Status: Enacted law; ruled unconstitutional
On February 25, 2019, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed SB 2451, a firearms-related bill. The New York State Legislature approved the bill along party lines in January. According to the New York State Senate website, SB 2451 "establishes extreme risk protection orders as a court-issued order of protection prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun."[45][46]
Beginning on August 24, 2019, the law authorized law enforcement officers, family members, and certain school officials to ask a court to issue an order restricting a person deemed likely to harm themselves or others from accessing firearms.[47]
Bill sponsor Sen. Brian Kavanagh (D-District 26) said in a statement, "Until now, this bill, which we have been working to pass for several years, has been blocked by Senate Republicans."[47] Republicans opposed to the bill, such as Sen. Pamela Helming (R-District 54) said it would "infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens."[46] Assm. William Barclay (R-District 120) said the bill was passed too quickly without public input or a "willingness to accept reasonable input from people who want to ensure that New Yorkers are safe but also worry about the infringement on people’s Second Amendment rights."[48]
On December 22, 2022, New York Supreme Court Judge Tom Moran ruled the law unconstitutional.[49] On April 4, 2023, a different New York Supreme Court Judge, Craig Brown, also ruled the law and subsequent amendments unconstitutional.[50]
Prior to the 2018 elections, New York had a divided government. Democrats held the governor's office and the state House. In the state Senate, Democrats held 32 seats to Republicans' 31. However, Republicans controlled the chamber, as one Democratic state senator caucused with the Republican Party.
On June 3, 2022, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed SB 9113 which expanded those eligible to file a petition for a risk protection order to include a range of medical, mental health, and social worker professionals. The bill also created educational and training requirements related to ERPOs for all divisions of the state police, and exempted medical professionals from civil or criminal liability related to the filing of an ERPO petition.[51]
The enactment of SB 9113 occurred shortly after Gov. Kathy Hochul signed Executive Order No. 19 on May 18, 2022. This executive order required state police to file a petition for an ERPO "whenever they have probable cause to believe that an individual is a threat to themselves or others."[52]
On December 22, 2022, New York Supreme Court Judge Tom Moran ruled the state's red flag laws were unconstitutional.[53] On April 4, 2023, a different New York Supreme Court Judge, Craig Brown, also ruled the law and subsequent amendments unconstitutional.[54]
2023
Status: Signed into law
On September 19, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed SB 3436 which exempted applications for extreme risk protection orders from requiring an index number fee.
SB 9113 passed the New York State Senate 45-17 on March 29, 2023, and passed the New York State Assembly 133-14 on June 6. Gov. Hochul said of the bill: "This piece of legislation will ensure increased accessibility with a more straightforward process for New Yorkers to take proactive measures in preventing harm and promoting public safety."[55]
2024
Status: Signed into law
On October 9, 2024, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed SB 3340 which required courts to notify the statewide registry of orders of protection and warrants within one day of a judge issuing or rescinding an ERPO.
Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed SB 1081 into law on May 19, 2020. The bill, titled the "Anti-Red Flag Law," prohibits the state, city, county, or any political subdivision from enacting red flag laws. It also prohibits state agencies and political subdivisions from accepting grants or funding to enact red flag laws. The bill went into effect immediately. [56]
Oregon
2017
Status: Signed into law
Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed SB 719 on August 17, 2017. The bill allows a police officer or family or household member to petition a civil court for an extreme risk protection order. The person subject to the order can request a hearing to have their firearms returned. If they are denied, the person is banned from possessing or purchasing a firearm or ammunition for one year.[57] SB 719 passed the state Senate by a 17-11 vote in May 2017 and the state House by a 31-28 vote in July 2017.
On June 1, 2018, Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) signed SB 2492. A statement from the governor's office described the legislation as allowing "law enforcement to petition the courts to remove firearms from individuals who pose a significant danger of causing imminent personal injury to themselves or others."[58] The bill had the support of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association.[59] It was passed following a school shooting on February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which left 17 people dead. Gov. Raimondo issued an executive order on February 26, 2018, that said law enforcement should "take all available legal steps" to remove firearms from a person deemed a significant threat and refer them for appropriate medical or mental health treatment.
Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed SB 2763 into law on May 28, 2024. The bill prohibits any "county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government law, ordinances, resolutions, enactments, or regulation" from enacting red flag laws. It also prevents political subdivisions of the state from accepting grants or funding for the purpose of enacting a red-flag laws. The bill went into effect immediately. [60]
Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed SB 1362 into law on June 22, 2025. The bill prohibited a state agency or authority, university systems, municipalities, counties, special districts and authorities, and district attorneys from "adopt[ing] or enforc[ing] a rule, ordinance, order, policy, or other similar measure relating to an extreme risk protective order unless state law specifically authorizes the adoption and enforcement of such a rule, ordinance, order, policy, or measure."[61]
The Republican-sponsored bill passed largely along party lines, although one Democrat in the Texas House of Representatives voted for the bill.[61]
On April 11, 2018, Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed S 221, an act relating to extreme risk protection orders. S 221 passed unanimously in the state House on March 29, 2018, and in the state Senate on April 5, 2018. According to NBC 5, Gov. Scott signed the bills on the steps of the state house before a crowd divided into groups of supporters and opponents. NBC 5 reported that supporters applauded the governor and held signs that read, "Thank you!" while opponents "appeared unpersuaded, yelling and shouting," calling the governor "a traitor and a liar for changing his view on the gun issue," and holding "signs promising to 'Remember in November.'"[62]
In his remarks, Gov. Scott explained that he owned guns and supported gun ownership but changed his views on legislation after he learned of a planned school shooting in Vermont. He said he understood that some residents were "disappointed and angry. I understand I may lose support over the decision to sign these bills today. Those are consequences I’m prepared to live with."[63]
Status: Became law (without signature of governor)
On May 12, 2023, Gov. Phil Scott (R) allowed H230 to become law without signature. Among other changes to firearms laws in the state, the bill included modifications to Vermont's red flag law which allowed a "family or household member" to petition for an extreme risk protection order on behalf of another individual. The new law specified that the family or household member will not remain a party to the petition and subsequent hearings and that the "State’s Attorney of the county where the petition was filed shall be substituted as the plaintiff" upon issuance of an order.
On April 8, 2020, Gov. Ralph Northam (D) signed SB 240. SB 240 passed the Senate by a 21-19 vote on January 22 and passed the House by a 53-47 vote on February 26. The law allows law enforcement to take firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves and others.[65] At a signing event for this and other firearms-related bills, Northam said, "We lose too many Virginians to gun violence, and it is past time we took bold, meaningful action to make our communities safer. I was proud to work with legislators and advocates on these measures, and I am proud to sign them into law. These commonsense laws will save lives."[66]
Voters in Washington approved the Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order, Initiative 1491, in 2016. The measure was approved by a vote of 69.4 percent. Initiative 1491 authorized courts to issue extreme risk protection orders. The person would need to be considered a significant danger to himself or herself or others before an extreme risk protection order can be authorized. The measure empowered certain individuals, including police, family, and household members, to petition a court for an extreme risk protection order on a person. The initiative provided that petitions need to explain facts that demonstrate a reasonable fear of future actions by the person. It also required petitions to be filed under oath. It provided that extreme risk protection orders last one year. The measure permitted petitioners to ask for the order to be renewed for an additional year. The measure was designed to allow persons under order to request a hearing to argue that the order be terminated. The measure also authorized courts to issue ex parte extreme risk protection orders, which would hasten the process of prohibiting a person from possessing or accessing firearms. It was designed to require petitioners to demonstrate a significant and immediate risk to invoke an ex parte extreme risk protection order.[67]
Among other changes to firearms laws in the sate, Washington amended its extreme risk protection order law in 2023 through HB 1715. The law extended the required surrender of firearms in possession of an individual subject to an ERPO to also include firearms "subject to the respondent's immediate possession or control."[67]
Gov. Jim Justice (R) signed HB 2694 into law on April 10, 2021. The bill, titled the "West Virginia Second Amendment Preservation and Anti-Federal Commandeering Act," states that "no court of this state has authority or jurisdiction to issue an order depriving a citizen of this state of his or her right to possess firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition under any red flag law." The bill went into effect 90 days after its passage into law. [68]
Gov. Mark Gordon (R) signed SF 0109 into law on March 22, 2024. The bill, titled the "Prohibit Red Flag Gun Seizure Act," prohibits the implementation or enforcement of any federal or state statute, rule, executive order, judicial order or judicial findings that "would enforce a red flag gun seizure order against or upon a resident of Wyoming." It also prevents the state and any of its agencies or political subdivisions from accepting grants or funding to enact red flag laws. The bill went into effect immediately. [69]
Ballotpedia features 616,813 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff or report an error. For media inquiries, contact us here. Please donate here to support our continued expansion.
