Michigan Republicans push ‘red flag’ gun law repeal: ‘We do not need this’

Michigan House Republican bill debated Wednesday would repeal the state’s extreme risk protection order law, or ‘red flag’ law
The law is meant to remove guns from people believed to be at risk of harming themselves or others; the guns are returned sometime later
Proponents say the law is an overreach and violates due process rights, though others believe those concerns are overblown

LANSING — House Republicans on Wednesday launched a push to repeal Michigan’s so-called red flag law, which allows authorities to temporarily remove guns from people at risk of hurting themselves or others, arguing the process violates due process rights.

“We do not need this,” argued state Rep. Jim DeSana, R-Carleton, who sponsored legislation that would undo the two-year-old statute. His plan is backed by 25 fellow House Republicans.

The legislation stands little chance of passing the Democratic-led Senate, but GOP lawmakers are hoping to revisit the gun confiscation law should they win full control of state government in next year’s election.

Gun rights groups cheered the proposal during a Wednesday House Judiciary Committee meeting, but an officer with the Southfield Police Department testified against the legislation, saying Michigan’s red flag law is “an effective tool for law enforcement agencies.”

Related:

“In our opinion, it’s an effective measure or mechanism to remove these firearms when we feel there’s a situation that’s creating danger for the individuals associated with the home,” Deputy Chief Aaron Huguley said.

Bills to establish a process for extreme risk protection orders, mandate the safe storage of firearms and require universal background checks on gun purchases were signed into law by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2023 following mass shootings at Oxford High School and Michigan State University.

The laws, which took effect in 2024, were pushed through the Legislature by a Democratic trifecta with little input from Republicans.

At the time of their passage, critics took umbrage with how risk protection hearings would operate and alleged gun owners were presumed guilty until proven innocent.

House Republicans, who now lead the chamber, resurfaced those arguments on Wednesday, along with gun rights groups who testified in support of a three-bill package that would strip the measure from Michigan law altogether.

“We need to enforce our existing laws,” said DeSana, the legislative sponsor, who argued extreme risk protection laws violate citizens’ constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.

‘I know where I stand’

Instead of utilizing the extreme risk protection orders, DeSana argued Michigan has other anti-threat and anti-terrorism laws on the books that could stymie person-on-person violence.

For someone thinking of committing suicide with a firearm, DeSana acknowledged that while Michigan has a 72-hour mental health hold law in statute, it could be strengthened.

He also argued that if someone were seriously contemplating hurting themselves or others, that removing a gun from their person didn’t necessarily remove the threat altogether, and that the same act could be accomplished by knife or vehicle.

When asked by state Rep. Kelly Breen, a Novi Democrat and driving force behind the 2023 law, if either police or judges supported the repeal, DeSana said he was “not going to answer that question.”

“I’m not looking for people to agree with me,” DeSana added. “I know where I stand, and I believe that our God given rights were written in the Constitution.”

In February, the State Court Administrative Office issued a report evaluating the usage of extreme risk protection orders in Michigan.

The state found a total of 391 risk protection orders were filed between Feb 13, 2024 – the date the law took effect – and Dec. 31 of that same year. Of those, 384 requests were filed against adults and seven against minors.

Judges across Michigan 287 orders – granting about three-quarters of all requests – but denied 84 others and rescinded eight previously issued orders following a court hearing.

While the new state data does not specify why judges issued gun confiscation orders, at least 31 individuals — or just over 11% of all people subject to the orders — were charged with a combined 74 criminal offenses within one month of a requested risk protection order.

Those in favor of repealing Michigan’s red flag law pointed to that 11% figure as proof the law sought to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.

“While opponents will champion this as some kind of success story, please keep in mind that means that they got wrong at least 89% of time,” Great Lakes Gun Rights Executive Director Brenden Boudreau said during testimony, calling Michigan’s red flag laws “a failure.”

“They’re an abomination to the rights we have as citizens of this constitutional republic,” he added, “and the Michigan Legislature would do well to repeal (the law) completely.”

By the numbers

Among people who had extreme risk protection orders filed against them and were later charged with crimes, the most frequent charge was domestic violence, followed by resisting, obstructing or otherwise assaulting a police officer.

Additionally, the new law makes it a crime for petitioners to make false claims when seeking an extreme risk protection order, though no one was charged with that offense in 2024.

Among red flag orders sought in 2024: One was for a Battle Creek man diagnosed with bipolar disorder, off medication and threatening his wife in a murder-suicide.

Another was filed against a 27-year-old voicing suicidal ideas in the midst of divorce proceedings, his wife concerned he’d actually follow through. One order even dealt with an elementary school student who had access to his parents’ guns and threatened to shoot a classmate.

Breen, the Novi Democrat, said that how Michigan has utilized risk protection orders in their first year “is exactly what we are seeing in other states.”

A vast majority of people who have firearms confiscated through a risk protection order “do not attempt to get them back, as most of them are suicidal, and they no longer have that temptation,” she said.

“Given that, I vehemently contest your assertion that due process is not being followed,” Breen said to DeSana.

Even police agencies that once fought against implementing risk protection orders have since acknowledged they’ve used the law to confiscate weapons, like in Livingston County.

Through the end of 2024, no red flag orders had been renewed, and at least two orders were rescinded by a post-order motion. That means a person had their firearms taken away, but was able to petition the court to return them before the one-year confiscation period concluded.

Lawmakers did not vote on DeSana’s bill package Wednesday.

Even if the full House did pass the measure, it would be unlikely the Democratic-led Senate would take it up — let alone have the move signed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who praised the concept of red flag orders when legalizing the move in Michigan last spring.

“So many of the perpetrators showed warning signs beforehand,” Whitmer said at the time. “Now we have a way to confiscate weapons from people who pose a danger to themselves or others.”