LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – One year after Michigan’s first “red flag” gun law came into effect in February 2024, Michigan House Republicans introduced a bill to repeal the law. However, that bill has yet to appear in committee.

Now, Gun Owners of America (GOA) is calling on Michigan legislators to review the bill in a press release issued Aug. 29.

MORE NEWS: Third Party Auditors Make Big Money Auditing City Books

“Red flag laws are a clear violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and they’re an attack on the Second Amendment,” Luis Valdes, the national spokesman for GOA said. “Gun Owners of America is absolutely vehemently against violation of things like due process, innocent until proven guilty, and of course, stripping law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.”

Red flag laws in Michigan.

Red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection laws, allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from people who have shown evidence of intent to harm themselves or others. Members of the community, such as law enforcement officers or relatives of the person, can file a petition for the courts to review cases with sufficient evidence.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed Michigan’s first red flag law titled the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act (ERPO) into law on May 22, 2023; the law went into effect on Feb. 13, 2024.

But Michigan Republicans, in collaboration with GOA, are working to get this law repealed, saying that the bill violates citizens’ right to gun ownership and due process. State Representative James DeSana (R-Carleton) introduced a bill package on Feb. 26 which would nullify the ERPO Act.

“The red flag laws are a direct violation of our second amendment rights,” said DeSana in a Mar. 3 press release. “These poorly written laws strip away our rights without the opportunity for individuals to defend themselves.”

What is ERPO?

Through the ERPO Act, the court has two methods to evaluate evidence brought by a petitioner and decide whether to remove firearms from a person. Through the first, the court alerts the person being charged, holds a hearing, and makes a decision.

MORE NEWS: Hot Summer, Sick Deer: Michigan Confirms First EHD Cases of 2025

But through the second, a petitioner may request that the court issue an emergency extreme risk protection order as soon as possible, without informing the person in question, because of evidence indicating imminent danger for the person or the community. If a judge decides the evidence is sufficient, he can issue a warrant for the guns to be removed from the accused without holding a hearing.

The accused then has the opportunity to request a hearing within the next 14 days to have the order rescinded. If the order is granted at any step of the process, the ban lasts one year, unless the person contests the order within the first six months.

Is it Constitutional?

According to Valdes, issuing the order without a hearing effectively deems the accused guilty without due process, violating constitutional rights.

“As a 15 year veteran law enforcement officer, one of the key issues is that an accusation is made against an individual, and then that individual has to prove in court that they are innocent,” Valdes said. “It completely flips the idea of due process and innocent until proven guilty within our criminal justice system.”

Valdes said he has spoken with a number of individuals across the country where this law has been abused.

“Across the country, they’re being used to actually disarm domestic violence victims,” Valdes said. “What’s occurring in a number of situations is you have a couple they’re going through domestic issues, one party wishes to leave while the abuser then files a fraudulent claim of a threat against the person they’re abusing and actually gets that person disarmed, so now it’s easier for them to abuse that person. It actually leaves them defenseless.”

The other side of the aisle.

Democrats argue that the laws are an effective way to allow family members to report violence, especially for suicides.

Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-Royal Oak), who sponsored the ERPO Act, argued in a Senate floor speech that the law reduces suicides.

“Red flag laws create a preventative tool — a stopgap for loved ones, judges, and law enforcement,” McMorrow said. “And while it is difficult to measure events that did not happen, evidence shows that these extreme risk protection orders can and do save lives.”

Time will tell.

Although Michigan is now among 21 states in the country to have red flag laws, there still remains a need for research on the laws’ effectiveness.

One study from 2018 shows that Indiana and Connecticut’s laws reduced firearm suicide rate by 7.5% and 14%, but few other studies exist to add additional support to this claim. According to another 2022 study, 10% of all red flag law filings involved three or more people, and that the majority of the threats were made against K-12 schools. But no studies appear to exist making a definitive connection between red flag laws and the reduction of mass violence.

The Michigan state court reported that in 2024, there were a total of 391 ERPO Act complaints, of which, 384 were complaints against adults and 7 were complaints against minors. Among the adult complaints, 355 requested orders to be made without a hearing, although judges sometimes did hold a hearing for an undisclosed number of times. Of all complaints, 287 orders were issued, 84 were denied, eight were rescinded after a hearing, and 12 were dismissed or inconclusive at the time of the report.