Michigan House hears testimony on proposed repeal of red flag law

Supporters and opponents clash over due process, public safety and mental health

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan lawmakers heard sharply divided testimony over legislation that would repeal the state’s extreme risk protection order law, commonly called the red flag law, with supporters and opponents disagreeing over whether the law protects public safety or violates constitutional due process

The package of bills would repeal Michigan’s extreme risk protection order act and make related changes to the Revised Judicature Act and state firearms law. The legislation is tie barred, meaning all related bills must pass for the repeal to take effect.

Supporters of the repeal argued the law allows firearms to be seized without the gun owner being present in court, reversing the presumption of innocence. They said ex parte orders can be issued based on limited evidence, forcing individuals to later prove they are not a danger in order to regain their property.

Watch the hearing below:

Testifying lawmakers and attorneys said Michigan already has criminal statutes addressing threats and violence, as well as mental health laws that allow for involuntary hospitalization with court oversight. They argued those tools provide due process protections that red flag orders lack.

Several witnesses described cases in which firearms were seized from households even when the gun owner was not accused of making threats. They said families often incur legal costs seeking the return of firearms, even when courts later determine no threat exists.

Sign up for my free newsletter if you want the stories the mainstream media won’t touch. If you can become a paid subscriber for less than $1 a week, please do. I can’t keep doing this work without reader support.

Opponents of the repeal said the law fills a critical gap by allowing temporary removal of firearms in situations where a person is showing signs of crisis but has not yet committed a crime. Law enforcement officials said the orders give officers a legal mechanism to intervene during volatile situations involving suicide threats, domestic disputes or escalating behavior.

A police official told lawmakers the law has been used to remove firearms in cases where individuals threatened to harm themselves while intoxicated or experiencing personal crises, including incidents involving children present in the home. He said the law provides a way to protect the individual, family members and responding officers while a person receives evaluation or treatment.

Gun violence prevention advocates said extreme risk protection orders are designed to be preventive, not punitive. They argued the law is intended to stop violence before it occurs, particularly suicides, which account for a majority of gun related deaths. Supporters said the temporary nature of the orders allows courts to act quickly while still providing a hearing process.

Advocates opposing repeal said the law has been used hundreds of times statewide and that they are not aware of successful prosecutions for abuse of the process. They argued removing the law would eliminate a tool families and police can use when they fear immediate harm but lack evidence for criminal charges.

Lawmakers questioned witnesses about evidentiary standards, notice requirements and whether reforms could address concerns without repealing the law entirely. Some legislators suggested tightening standards or expanding mental health resources rather than eliminating the orders.

The legislation would also amend court statutes governing service of process and fee schedules, including provisions stating that certain fees and service requirements do not apply to actions brought under the extreme risk protection order act.

No vote was taken during the hearing. The bills remain before the committee for further consideration.