Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO)

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), also known as “red flag laws” are court orders to temporarily block a person who is a threat to themselves or others from accessing a gun. The intent behind red flag laws is to de-escalate an emergency situation and prevent gun violence, especially mass shootings. ERPOs have limited durations for preventing a person’s access to weapons including guns they already own or plan to purchase. 

ERPOs can be petitioned to the court by family members, household members, or law enforcement officers. The petitioner must demonstrate that the individual poses an immediate threat of harm. ERPO petitions are ex parte, as they are based on only the evidence of petitioners. A prompt hearing follows the initial order, usually within 21 days, which allows both parties to participate by defending their position. Once an order is issued, law enforcement will go to a person’s residence or wherever they store their weapons and take custody of them. A person under an ERPO may not purchase any new weapons either. 

As of early 2026, 21 states have red flag laws and the specific requirements of ERPOs vary by jurisdiction. Some states have expanded who can petition the court for ERPOs. For example, New York allows school administrators and medical professionals to file ERPOs. See: NY CPLR § 6341. California’s red flag law, Gun Violence Restraining Order, allows employers, coworkers, and teachers to file petitions, and orders can be enforced for 1-5 years. See: Cal Pen Code §§ 18170-18197.

Red flag laws face criticism for potentially violating the Second Amendment. As such, red flag laws must include due process protections and high evidentiary standards. For example, in 2019, a Florida appellate court upheld the state’s Risk Protection Order (RPO) statute in Davis v. Gilchrist County Sheriff's Office, 280 So. 3d 524 (2019). In Davis, a deputy of the Gilchrist County Sheriff's office, filed an RPO against a fellow deputy, Davis, for making threats of violence against another person. The Court found that the statute was constitutional and did not violate due process because it was intended to prevent gun violence, required a hearing within 14 days of the RPO’s filing, required clear and convincing evidence in order to grant an RPO, and was limited to 12 months maximum.