California Counties Filed More than 1,000 ‘Red Flag’ Orders Last Year. Supporters Say That’s Not Enough.

Back when the gun control lobby first began its sustained push for states to adopt “red flag” laws nearly a decade ago, they talked about Extreme Risk Protection Orders the same way Democrats talked about abortions in the 1990s; they should be safe, legal, and rare. 

Once these laws are in place, though, the rarity of their use becomes an issue all its own, and there’s an equally strong push to expand their use and pump up the number of “red flag” orders that are issued. After the shooting at a Buffalo, New York grocery store in 2022, for instance, Gov. Kathy Hochul directed the New York State Police to filed “red flag” orders whenever possible, and the agency was soon so inundated with seized firearms it had no room to store them all. 

Colorado recently loosened its restrictions on who can apply for a “red flag” order in the hopes of increasing their use, and now supporters in California are wondering why the state’s “red flag law” is still seeing “scattered use” a decade after it went into effect, even though there were well over 1,000 ERPO petitions filed last year. 

It’s been about a decade since gun-violence restraining orders were enabled by California law, but their use is still middling in the state, according to data from the California Department of Justice. That has prompted some of the law’s architects and most prominent backers to make a renewed push to increase awareness both among the public and law enforcement.

“We have example after example where (the orders) have prevented a suicide, a domestic violence shooting or a mass shooting,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in an interview. “But there is still room to grow.”

Santa Clara County has secured the most gun-violence restraining orders in the state for two years running. It filed 683 orders in 2024, or 41% more than San Diego County, which filed 483 and had previously topped the list.

Can Rosen prove that these orders have prevented a single crime from occurring? Of course not. That’s one of the issues with ERPO’s; there’s no way to determine their effectiveness. One widely-cited study that looked at data from four states including California suggests one suicide was prevented for every 17–23 ERPOs, which is in line with another study that found one suicide is prevented for every 22 “red flag” orders. 

Which begs the question: if an Extreme Risk Protection Order prevents a suicide less than 5% of the time, what happens in the vast majority of “red flag” orders? Do we know how many of these individuals go on to take their lives by other means, as well as how many were not really at risk of self-harm in the first place? 

Keep in mind, these are the studies that are generally cited in support of “red flag” laws. There’s simply no evidence that Extreme Risk Protection Orders are all that effective effective at reducing suicide or homicide. Why would they be? If someone is a danger to themselves or others, that’s going to remain the case whether or not they can legally possess a firearm. We need to be dealing with the dangerousness itself, not one particular item a dangerous person might use against themselves or others. 

And, of course, the more widespread “red flag” orders become, the more likely that they’ll be filed against individuals who don’t pose a threat to themselves or others at all. Judges, however, have an incentive to approve Extreme Risk Protection Orders; do they really want to deny a petition only for that person to go on to commit a crime of violence? Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry, at least from the judge’s perspective? 

“Red flag” orders are a gun control solution to what is most often a mental health issue. I get why gun control activists are so invested in expanding these laws and want as many petitions filed as possible, but even beyond the Second Amendment implications these laws are a bad idea and a poor substitute for what’s really needed: more access to mental health resources and in-patient care for those suffering an acute crisis that puts themselves and others at risk.  

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.