New Report Exposes Big Problems With ‘Red Flag’ Law

Are “red flag” laws really a narrow and targeted approach to dealing with dangerous individuals that doesn’t intrude or infringe on our Second Amendment rights? Supporters say that’s the case, but a new report by Michigan’s State Court Administrative Office should raise some red flags of its own. 

According to the report, 514 Extreme Risk Protection Order complaints were filed in Michigan last year; more than one per day. Of those, just 55 did not involve an ex-parte hearing where the subject of the complaint was allowed to attend and offer evidence in their defense. The vast majority of hearings took place without the subject in attendance, or even aware that a complaint had been filed. 

That alone is concerning, but the outcomes in these cases is even more troubling. 

There is widespread gun confiscation targeting innocent people going on in Michigan.

An official report on the use of ERPOs (Red Flag laws) has been released, and the data is worse than we could have imagined.

Almost 90% of people targeted by these orders never received a trial… pic.twitter.com/IdFp4jjRNW

— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) March 10, 2026

Almost 90% of people targeted by these orders never received a trial or hearing. Of them, only 7.2% were charged with any crime, including charges related to resisting the confiscation of their firearms. This mirrors similar data out of California and other states showing that Red Flag laws are primarily used against people who have not committed any crime, and do not go on to commit any crime in the future.It is time for these unconstitutional and terroristic laws to go.

Of the 75 criminal offenses filed against 37 individuals either shortly before or after someone was subject to an ERPO, just 26 resulted in a guilty plea or conviction. Coincidentally or not, 26 of the 75 charges involved the use or possession of a firearm. Fifteen of the charges were dismissed outright, while another 37 are listed in the report as “undisposed.”

Based on this report it’s evident that the vast majority of “red flag” orders did not involve anyone who were charged with criminal acts either before or after their firearms were seized. We can assume, then, that most “red flag” petitions in Michigan involved threats to self and not to others. 

Unfortunately, the report doesn’t document the outcome of those cases. What we do know is that under Michigan’s “red flag” law someone who is deemed too dangerous to possess a firearm is not subject to any kind of mental health treatment. In fact, none is offered. This, along with research suggesting that only one suicide is prevented for every 13 to 23 ERPOs issued, is pretty clear evidence that “red flag” laws are not the best way to deal with individuals suffering from suicidal ideation. 

Defenders of Michigan’s “red flag” law point to the fact that about 20% of petitions were denied as proof that judges aren’t rubber-stamping petitions for approval; a stance that 2A groups like Great Lakes Gun Rights wholeheartedly disputes. 

Accessing? That’s a very odd choice of word to use.

They are being approved at an 80 percent rate, of which nearly 90 percent are ex parte, yet somehow that is not rubberstamping?

Is this journalism or just talking points from the the gun control lobby you reprinted? https://t.co/nxSvAJnKB3

— GreatLakesGunRights (@GLGunRights) March 11, 2026

The group makes an interesting point. Denials were more likely to take place in those cases where the subject of a “red flag” petition was allowed to participate in their own defense. Of the 55 cases where an ex parte hearing wasn’t requested, 35 ended up with an ERPO issued. Another 15 were dismissed outright, while another two petitions were withdrawn and three others listed as “undisposed.” That means that about 65% of petitions filed without an ex parte hearing request were granted, compared to an 88% approval rate for emergency ex parte hearings and 78% of ex parte hearings. 

Those figures suggest that “red flag” orders are being rubberstamped in some cases, and are far more likely to be approved if the subject of a proposed ERPO is not around to offer any evidence to dispute the allegations against them. Michigan Open Carry posted on X that it has “experience” in a case where police “red flagged” the victims of an incident and a judge went along with their request, which is another “red flag” of its own.

I don’t dispute that ERPO laws may prevent a small number of instances of self-harm. What I do dispute, though, is the idea that “red flag” laws are the only or best way to save those lives. Greater access to mental health resources, voluntary off-site storage of firearms, and even involuntary commitments in extreme cases are all better ways to address those in acute crisis than simply taking guns away and considering the problem solved. As the number of ERPO cases grows in Michigan, lawmakers, mental health advocates, gun owners, and even gun control advocates need to ask whether the state’s “red flag” law is doing more damage than it’s preventing.