Federal ERPOs: A New Solution to Gun Violence?
What happens when an individual begins displaying increasingly alarming behavior, potentially dangerous, yet no criminal charge can be filed due to a lack of actual criminal activity, leaving authorities with no lawful means to intervene?
This dilemma—where obvious warning signs fail to satisfy traditional legal requirements—captures a central challenge in gun violence prevention. Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), also known as Red Flag Laws, were developed to address this issue by allowing temporary firearm removal through a civil court process. The big question, however, is whether federally mandated use of ERPOs, instead of inconsistencies across states, could contribute to reductions in gun violence while remaining constitutional.
A clear understanding of ERPO functions requires an understanding of both procedure and evidence-based foundations. ERPOs are court orders that temporarily prohibit firearm possession by an individual who may be a threat to others or themselves. Courts often use a preponderance standard for emergency orders and a clear-and-convincing standard for longer-term restrictions. Petitioners include law enforcement officers and, in many jurisdictions, family members, cohabitants, educators, and behavioral-health professionals. This distribution is parallel with findings that show law enforcement to be the most frequent petitioner while non–law enforcement petitioners play a meaningful role in identifying risk (Injury Epidemiology 2025). Statutes also require notice, hearings, judicial findings, and processes for firearm return, reflecting efforts to align risk prevention with procedural due process.
Vast research offers insight into the potential benefits of ERPOs. Researchers from The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law estimate that between “seventeen and twenty-three ERPOs are required to prevent a single suicide” (JAAPL 2024). This figure suggests a measurable effect of ERPOs on suicide prevention, although the impact is modest in population terms. As of 2025, only 22 states implement ERPOs, but those that do have shown significant reductions in fatalities; some of these states, like Indiana and Connecticut, provide additional evidence. Implementation in Indiana corresponded with a 7.5 percent reduction in firearm suicide, while Connecticut’s experience ranged from reductions of 1.6 percent to 13.7 percent depending on the enforcement period (Psychiatric Services 2018). These findings indicate that ERPO-type interventions may help reduce suicide risk before it happens when applied regularly.
Threats of interpersonal violence provide other clues in which ERPOs may have preventive value. A study of California’s first three years of ERPO implementation found fifty-eight cases involving threatened mass shootings and reported that none of the threatened shootings occurred after orders were issued (UC Davis Health 2022). This evidence suggests that ERPOs may disrupt early stages of targeted violence, although the limited number of cases calls for caution. Continued monitoring, improved data collection, and cross-jurisdictional comparisons will be necessary to clarify the strength of this effect.
A neutral legal assessment must also consider the constitutional and procedural dimensions of ERPOs. Courts evaluating ERPO statutes frequently apply the Mathews v. Eldridge test to determine whether temporary firearm removals are consistent with due process of law. Many statutes withstand review because they provide notice, prompt hearings, defined evidentiary standards, and penalties for false filings. Second Amendment challenges after N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen encourages courts to examine historical similarities for temporary firearm restrictions of dangerous individuals. Judicial decisions often maintain ERPOs when they are narrow, temporary, and supported by individualized judicial findings, noting that historical practices allowed similar temporary measures for individuals deemed dangerous.
The broader question of whether widespread ERPO use could curb gun violence depends on implementation consistency, public awareness, and statutory design. ERPOs fill a gap between idleness and more over-the-top alternatives, such as involuntary psychiatric commitment or criminal prosecution. Their utility depends on effective training for law enforcement, smooth petition procedures, well-defined firearm returns, and clear safeguards against misuse. Current research indicates that ERPOs may help reduce firearm homicide, yet the scale of these effects varies and depends on how often and how effectively these laws are used. Policymakers must balance these potential benefits with ongoing concerns about fairness, access, and variability across courts.
In conclusion, ERPOs appear to offer a legally viable and potentially effective tool for addressing specific forms of gun violence, particularly homicide. Evidence from Indiana, Connecticut, and California presents reasonable preventive outcomes, while studies on petitioner patterns and procedural safeguards bring up the importance of careful design. ERPOs remain only one part of a larger policy system, yet they represent a machine that may support public safety when applied with trust in constitutional laws and backed by solid evidence.
Bibliography
Swanson, Jeffrey W, et al. “Suicide Prevention Effects of Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws in Four States.” PubMed, vol. 52, no. 3, 20 Aug. 2024, jaapl.org/content/early/2024/08/20/JAAPL.240056-24, https://doi.org/10.29158/jaapl.240056-24.
News. “Extreme Risk Protection Orders to Prevent Mass Shootings: What Does the Research Show?” News, 17 June 2022, health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/extreme-risk-protection-orders-to-prevent-mass-shootings-what-does-the-research-show/2022/06.
Barnard, Leslie M, et al. “Extreme Risk Protection Order Use in Six US States: A Descriptive Study.” Injury Epidemiology, vol. 12, no. 1, 3 June 2025, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12131552/, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-025-00585-x.
Kivisto, Aaron J, and Peter Lee Phalen. “Effects of Risk-Based Firearm Seizure Laws in Connecticut and Indiana on Suicide Rates, 1981-2015.” Psychiatric Services (Washington, D.C.), vol. 69, no. 8, 2018, pp. 855–862, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29852823, https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700250.