Red Flag Laws: Proceed with Caution

58 Pages Posted: 18 Aug 2020 Last revised: 5 Nov 2021

See all articles by David B. Kopel

David B. Kopel

University of Wyoming College of Law - Firearms Research Center; Independence Institute; Cato Institute; Denver University - Sturm College of Law

Date Written: November 5, 2021


“Red flag” laws, or “extreme risk protection orders”, have been enacted in several states. While the idea for these laws is reasonable, some statutes are not. They destroy due process of law, endanger law enforcement and the public, and can be handy tools for stalkers and abusers to disarm their innocent victims. Many order are improperly issued against innocent people.

The Conference of Chief Justices asked the Uniform Law Commissioners to draft a national model red flag law, but the Giffords organization blocked the effort — lest it offer an alternative to the extreme and reckless system being pushed by Giffords and related groups, most notably the Bloomberg entities.

When Confucius was asked what would be the first step if a government sought his advice, he answered, “It would certainly be to rectify the names. . . . If the names are not correct, language is without an object.” Bills that claim to be about “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” are not correct; the bills cover much lower-level risks, or just “a danger.” Likewise, the term “red flag” is dubious because some bills label as dangerous the peaceable exercise of constitutional rights. A more accurate name for these laws is “gun confiscation orders.”

Such orders can be legitimate when fair procedures accurately identify dangerous individuals. Such laws include the following features:

• Petitions initiated by law enforcement, not by spurned dating partners or relationships from long ago.
• Ex parte hearings only when there is proof of necessity.
• Proof by clear and convincing evidence that has been corroborated.
• Guarantees of all due process rights, including cross-examination and right to counsel.
• Court-appointed counsel if the respondent so wishes.
• A civil remedy for victims of false and malicious petitions.
• Safe and orderly procedures for relinquishment of firearms.
• Strict controls on no-knock raids.
• Storage of relinquished firearms by responsible third parties.
• Prompt restoration of concealed carry permits for the falsely accused.
• Prompt return of firearms upon the termination of an order.
• Renewal of orders based on presentation of clear and convincing proof.
• Not allowing time-limited orders to be bootstrapped into lifetime federal prohibition.

Keywords: Red Flag Law, Extreme Risk Protection Order, Due Process, Firearms Confiscation

JEL Classification: 118, K14, K42

Suggested Citation

Kopel, David B., Red Flag Laws: Proceed with Caution (November 5, 2021). Law & Psycology Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2021, Available at SSRN: or

David B. Kopel (Contact Author)

University of Wyoming College of Law - Firearms Research Center ( email )

United States


Independence Institute ( email )

727 East 16th Ave
Denver, CO 80203
United States
303-279-6536 (Phone)
303-279-4176 (Fax)


Cato Institute ( email )

1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-5403
United States


Denver University - Sturm College of Law ( email )

2255 E. Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
United States


Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics