An extreme risk protection order, often called a red flag order, is a civil court order that temporarily prohibits a person from buying or possessing firearms after a judge finds that the person poses a serious risk of harm to themselves or others. As of late 2025, 22 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of ERPO law, with Maine the most recent to adopt one by ballot measure.
How an ERPO Case Moves Through Court
An ERPO case begins when an eligible petitioner files a request describing specific behavior that suggests the person is dangerous. The petition is usually supported by sworn statements.
Courts can issue a temporary order on an emergency basis without the respondent present, based on a finding of immediate risk. These temporary orders generally last up to 14 days and stay in effect only until a full hearing takes place. At the hearing, the respondent can appear, present evidence, and contest the petition. Respondents have the right to legal representation, but because ERPO cases are civil rather than criminal, in most states they must hire their own attorney.
If the court finds sufficient evidence of ongoing risk after the hearing, it issues a final ERPO. Final orders in most states last up to one year. Before the order expires, the original petitioner can ask the court to renew it for another year, but only after another hearing where the petitioner shows the risk continues.
Who Can File a Petition
Eligibility to petition varies by state. Most ERPO laws authorize:
- Law enforcement officers
- Family members
- Household members
Some states also allow healthcare professionals, school officials, or co-workers to file. Michigan’s law, for example, opens the door to law enforcement, family members, household members, and certain health professionals.1Michigan Legislature. Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, Public Act 38 of 2023 Maine’s new law, approved by voters on November 4, 2025, authorizes law enforcement, family members, and household members to petition.
What the Petitioner Has to Prove
The petitioner carries the burden of showing the respondent is dangerous. Michigan’s statute, which is representative of the framework used by many states, allows a court to issue an order if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant risk of personal injury to themselves or others.2Michigan Legislature. Michigan Compiled Laws 691.1801 – Short Title
A judge is not limited to any single type of proof. In March 2024, a New York appellate court rejected the argument that the state’s ERPO law required a physician’s diagnosis of mental illness before a court could act, holding that judges can assess risk based on the full range of evidence presented at a hearing.3Justia. Matter of R.M. v C.M. Threats, prior violence, statements of intent, and documented behavior can all support a petition.
Penalties for Violating an Order
Possessing or buying a firearm while subject to an active ERPO is a criminal offense in every state that has enacted one. Penalties vary, but violations are taken seriously because the whole enforcement mechanism depends on compliance with the court’s order. The Department of Justice’s model ERPO legislation recommends criminal penalties for any respondent who knowingly possesses or acquires a firearm in violation of an order, or who fails to surrender firearms as required.4U.S. Department of Justice. Commentary for Extreme Risk Protection Order Model Legislation
Federal law adds another layer. Under 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(8), possession of a firearm while subject to certain qualifying court orders is prohibited and can result in federal prosecution.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 – Unlawful Acts
Penalties for Filing a False Petition
Most states with ERPO laws also punish petitioners who file knowingly false claims. Michigan makes a first offense for knowingly filing a false ERPO petition a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $500 fine. A second offense becomes a felony carrying up to four years in prison, and a third offense brings up to five years and a $20,000 fine.1Michigan Legislature. Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, Public Act 38 of 2023 Several other states classify a knowingly false filing as a felony from the start.
Most ERPO statutes also grant good-faith immunity, protecting petitioners who file a genuine but ultimately unsuccessful petition from criminal or civil liability. That immunity falls away when the filing is demonstrably malicious or fraudulent.
Getting Firearms Back After the Order Ends
When an ERPO expires or is terminated, the respondent does not automatically get their firearms back. In most states, the respondent has to formally request their return. Law enforcement then runs a background check to confirm the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms for some other reason, such as a later felony conviction or a separate protective order. If the check clears, the firearms are returned and the background check system is updated to reflect that the ERPO is no longer in effect.
A respondent who wants an order lifted early generally must petition the court and show a meaningful change in circumstances. Some states limit how often a respondent can seek early termination during a single order period, and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent, which is the reverse of the original proceeding. Storage fees may accumulate while firearms are held, and costs vary by jurisdiction and by whether firearms are stored by law enforcement or a private facility. Respondents should expect to provide identification and may need to appear in person to retrieve their property.
Are ERPO Laws Constitutional
Yes, based on the Supreme Court’s most recent guidance. On June 21, 2024, the Court ruled 8-1 in United States v. Rahimi that temporarily disarming someone a court has found to pose a credible threat to another person’s physical safety is consistent with the Second Amendment.6Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Rahimi The case involved the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by a person under a domestic violence restraining order, not an ERPO directly. But the Court endorsed the principle every red flag law rests on: a judicial finding of dangerousness can justify temporary firearm restrictions, and a long tradition of disarming people who threaten others satisfies the historical test the Court had set out in its 2022 Bruen decision.
Where ERPO Laws Stand Now
The map keeps changing. Michigan’s ERPO Act took effect on February 13, 2024, creating a full framework for petitions, temporary orders, and final orders.2Michigan Legislature. Michigan Compiled Laws 691.1801 – Short Title
New York, one of the earliest and most active ERPO states, issued nearly 14,000 temporary and final orders through early February 2025, with 5,357 of them in 2024 alone. In October 2024, the state enacted a law requiring courts to notify the statewide registry of orders of protection and warrants whenever a judge issues a temporary or final ERPO, closing a gap that had let some orders go unrecorded.7Governor Kathy Hochul. Safer Streets: Governor Hochul Announces New Law Strengthening State’s Red Flag Law Now in Effect
Maine joined the list on November 4, 2025, when voters approved an ERPO ballot measure by roughly 63 percent. The Maine law allows a district court to prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing dangerous weapons for up to one year on a finding of significant risk, and authorizes emergency orders without prior notice when someone poses an immediate danger, with a hearing required within 14 days.
Because the specifics of who can petition, what standard applies, and how long orders last differ from state to state, anyone facing or considering an ERPO should consult the statute and court rules in their own state, and talk to an attorney familiar with that state’s practice.