There are many misconceptions about Extreme Risk laws, but the bottom line is that these laws provide a lifesaving tool to allow family members, law enforcement, and other designated community members to take action when an individual is in crisis and considering harming themselves or others and has access to firearms. Below are some of the common myths about Extreme Risk laws and the facts that dispel them.
Myth: Extreme Risk laws are unconstitutional because they allow guns to be taken away from law-abiding gun owners without due process.
Fact: Extreme Risk laws include robust due process protections that meet the standards set by the Supreme Court. While the details of each state’s law vary slightly, these laws generally allow judges to enter an emergency short-term order after family, law enforcement, or a designated community member provides evidence that the person poses an immediate risk to themselves or others. The judge is then required to notify the person who is the subject of the order and provide them the opportunity to appear in court to challenge the assertions made in the petition and present evidence on their own behalf. Only after such notice and opportunity to be heard, the judge may issue a final order, which is generally also of limited duration, usually up to one year. The United States Supreme Court has recognized, in multiple contexts, that this process—a pre-hearing deprivation followed by a full hearing within a reasonable time frame—satisfies the due process of law required by the Constitution. An extreme risk protection order may only be extended beyond the original date if the court holds an additional hearing and considers new evidence.
Myth: Extreme Risk laws allow anyone to have their guns taken away and will be used vindictively.
Fact: Extreme Risk laws are carefully crafted measures that create a process to remove a person’s access to guns only if a court finds the person to be a serious risk of harming themself or others. Only certain narrow categories of people — generally family members, law enforcement, and sometimes other specific, designated community members, who are often the first to see warning signs — can ask a judge to issue an extreme risk protection order. And the order can only be issued if the judge finds, after reviewing the evidence, that the person poses a risk of injury to themselves or others. Only this judicial order can cause a person’s guns to be removed — the petition itself does not have that power. Once the extreme risk protection order expires or is terminated by the court, the person’s guns must be returned as long as they are not prohibited from having guns for any other reason. In addition, most Extreme Risk laws include specific penalties to make sure this process is not abused, making it a crime for a person to knowingly submit false information in a petition for an extreme risk protection order or to knowingly file a frivolous petition.
Myth: Extreme risk protection orders remove someone’s guns permanently with no opportunity to get their guns back.
Fact: Extreme risk protection orders are temporary in nature and are designed to remove a person’s access to guns only for the limited time period in which they pose a serious risk. Extreme Risk laws allow the issuance of an emergency order only for a period of weeks, while a final order issued after a hearing is generally limited to a specified period of time – often one year – unless another court hearing is held and the judge finds that the person continues to pose a serious risk of injury to themselves or others by having a gun. Once an order expires or is terminated, the person’s firearms must be returned to them, as long as they are not otherwise prohibited from having them.
Myth: Extreme Risk laws are unnecessary — this is a mental health problem, and the solution is to address mental illness.
Fact: Suggesting that mental health is a driving factor of this country’s gun violence crisis is inaccurate and ignores existing research that points to other root causes. Research has shown that most people with mental illness are not violent; in fact, they are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. While our country must do better to help and support those living with a mental health condition, we also need to be able to intervene and temporarily remove access to firearms from individuals who are experiencing a crisis – which may have nothing to do with mental illness – and are at risk for harming themselves or others.. That’s what Extreme Risk laws do: empower family members, law enforcement, and others who recognize warning signs of violence based on observable behaviors to take action to prevent a tragedy.
Myth: There is no evidence that Extreme Risk laws reduce gun violence.
Fact: Thousands of petitions for extreme risk protection orders have been filed in states with Extreme Risk laws, and there is substantial evidence that these orders are saving lives. Following Connecticut’s increased enforcement of its Extreme Risk law, the state saw a 14% reduction in its firearm suicide rate. In the 10 years after Indiana passed its law, the state’s firearm suicide rate decreased 7.5 percent. A study of extreme risk protection orders in six states found that 10% of them concerned threats of violence against at least three people, and of those cases, the most common type of threat was directed at a K-12 school. Anecdotal evidence also shows the protective impact of these laws – Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund maintains a list of case examples where extreme risk protection orders were used to intervene in cases where there was evidence of serious risk of harm to self or others. These laws are having a real impact in preventing horrific tragedies and saving lives.