Republican Party-led states want to penalize enforcement of red flag gun orders

The Story was originally published by The trail, a nonprofit newsroom that reports on gun violence in America.

On May 18, 2018, a teenager from Santa Fe High School in Texas entered the school armed with his father’s guns and opened fire, killing eight students and two teachers. Evidence later showed the teenager had been experiencing a severe and deteriorating mental health crisis in the lead-up to the attack.

But Texas had no mechanism in place to allow law enforcement or others to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from the home. Last year, the state ensured that this would never be the case: Lawmakers banned extreme risk protection orders, which allow police and families to ask judges to temporarily take away guns from unsafe people.

Christina Delgado, a Santa Fe resident who advocated for gun reform after the shooting, told state lawmakers that the attack might have been prevented with the type of legal remedies the bill sought to ban. “Had timely and appropriate assistance and support been provided to this family, a different outcome may have been achieved,” she told a Texas Senate committee examining the bill.

They still passed the measure. And Texas is not alone. A growing number of states are banning orders that aim to quickly and temporarily take guns away from people who are in imminent danger of harming themselves or others.

ERPO laws, also known as “red flag laws,” once enjoyed support from across the political spectrum, including from President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, which lobbied for federal funding in 2018 to support states implement the measures. Six states have now banned enforcement of the orders — and in some cases have imposed fines or criminal charges on officials who try. Three other states are considering similar bans in 2026.

Researchers and advocates warn that this trend could leave courts, police and families grappling with a patchwork of conflicting rules. It could also undermine a tool widely seen as preventing suicides, which account for the majority of gun deaths in the United States.

“We are very concerned about the evolution of anti-ERPO laws, both because of the increasing number of states enacting these laws and the escalations within the laws themselves,” said Emily Walsh, legal and policy counsel at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

From symbolic to punitive

ERPOs increased in popularity following the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and 22 states now allow courts to issue them. Oklahoma was the first state to ban the orders in 2020. The measure prohibits cities and counties from issuing ERPOs or accepting funding to implement them. West Virginia and Tennessee followed. These bans contained no significant penalties for violations and were largely symbolic, as no locality in these states had ever enacted ERPOs.

But a recent wave of legislation is taking a more aggressive approach. Bans enacted by Montana and Texas in 2025 and Wyoming in 2026 have consequences for officials enforcing ERPOs, including those enacted by other states. In Montana, the state can fine local governments up to $10,000 per violation. In Wyoming, violating the ban can result in up to a year in prison, a $2,000 fine, or both. Texas’ ban goes the furthest: It makes enforcing or serving an ERPO a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.

Nicole Golden, a gun reform advocate in Texas, said the bans reflect other political battles she has observed. She worries that Texas’ ban will inspire other states to adopt similar proposals. “That’s just the way it is,” she said. “Sometimes Texas is the petri dish for these really extreme tactics.”

Proposed ERPO bans pending in at least three other states suggest the trend is accelerating. Proposals in Iowa and Missouri would impose $50,000 fines for violations. South Carolina’s bill, called the Ban Against Red Flag Gun Confiscation Act, would make enforcement a felony. The sponsors of these measures did not respond to requests for comment.

Proper process protection

While ERPOs once enjoyed bipartisan support for denying weapons to people in crisis situations without broadly restricting access to weapons, positions have become polarized over time. Today, gun rights advocates and Republicans argue that banning ERPOs protects gun owners from firearms confiscation without due process.

However, ERPO laws contain protective measures. Orders require the approval of a judge, a sworn statement and an immediate court hearing. People who have an order in place are notified, can challenge the allegations and usually ask a judge to lift the order early. Most laws also guarantee the return of firearms when an order expires. To prevent abuse, many states penalize people who lie on their petition or abuse the process.

Still, opponents say these protections are inadequate. “This is a situation where a law-abiding Texan can have their constitutional rights taken away without due process based on a casual report or complaint,” Texas Republican Rep. Bryan Hughes, who supported the state’s ban, told colleagues during a committee hearing last year.

At the same hearing, Kyle Rittenhouse, a representative of a group called Texas Gun Rights, also testified in support of the ban. Rittenhouse — who wore an assault rifle-shaped pin on his lapel — portrayed ERPOs as a way to “weaponize” false accusations.

In 2020, Rittenhouse shot three people and killed two during racial justice protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. A jury acquitted him of murder charges, but he still faces negligence and wrongful death lawsuits from the man he wounded and the family of 26-year-old Anthony Huber, one of the two men Rittenhouse killed.

Cross-border disputes

Five of the six states that ban ERPOs border at least one state that allows them, increasing the likelihood of cross-border disputes over how these orders are enforced.

For example, if a court in New Mexico issues an ERPO against a person living in or moving near Texas, police there could face criminal charges for attempting to enforce it. “Maybe they’re here in Texas now and they’re resorting to firearms. Maybe they’re taking the gun back and hurting someone. Maybe they’re trying to take their own life,” said Golden, the director of Texas Gun Sense. “The police can’t help them; no one can help them.”

The order would prevent the person from purchasing a gun if they submit to a background check. But Texas, like the other anti-ERPO states, does not require background checks on all gun sales.

In most states with ERPOs, there are two main types: emergency and final orders. Judges can issue emergency orders without both parties present, but these last only a few days or weeks before a hearing on a final order is required. Final orders usually last a year.

Walsh, the Johns Hopkins expert, said people in states that allow ERPOs may not be able to obtain a final order against someone in a state that bans them because authorities cannot give the subject the notice required by law.

Suicides

ERPOs are often enacted in response to mass shootings to prevent future tragedies. Some miniature studies and case reviews suggest that the orders have thwarted mass violence. But a growing body of research shows that the orders are most effective at reducing gun suicide.

According to the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every state that bans ERPOs had a firearm suicide rate higher than the national average in 2024. Wyoming had the highest rate in the country.

In Texas, Ayaan Moledina, a 15-year student representative, urged lawmakers to block the ban and consider passing an ERPO law instead. He told the committee he had tried to take his own life several times.

“I’m alive today because I didn’t have access to a firearm,” Moledina said. “I truly believe that if I could have used a weapon, I wouldn’t be sitting here in front of you today.”