Red Flag Law Sponsors in Georgia Raise Red Flags Surrounding Gun Rights

Democrats in Georgia are continuing to double down on unconstitutional gun control laws; this time, in the form of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), or more commonly known as Red Flag Laws. This proposed legislative effort, sponsored by gun-grabbing Democrats, aims to introduce ERPOs in the state.

Introduced to the Georgia General Assembly in 2025 and carried over into 2026, two companion bills SB–92 and HB–453 aim to create a legal mechanism to authorize courts to temporarily restrict firearm access for individuals deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others. These measures seek to intervene in potential crises involving gun violence, suicide, or threats, while incorporating due process protections. But does it really protect an individual’s due process? Based on the language in the bill, the answer is a big fat “No”.

 Under the proposed Georgia legislation, the process begins when a petitioner, namely a family/household member (to include former spouses), or a law enforcement officer, files a petition with the court. They must provide evidence showing the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to themselves or others through firearm use. If the court finds probable cause of immediate risk, a judge can issue a temporary ex parte risk protection order without the respondent’s initial presence.

This alone is a gross violation due process. No wonder why they added this language to their bill: “such petition for a risk protection order does not require either party to be represented by an attorney.”  The temporary order requires the respondent to surrender all firearms, ammunition, as well as any weapons carry licenses to law enforcement or a designated party. It also prohibits purchasing, possessing, or attempting to acquire firearms while the order is active. 

An initial hearing occurs “promptly” within 14 days of the temporary hearing, allowing both sides to present evidence. The respondent receives notice and an opportunity to contest the allegations, defend their rights, and provide counterevidence. If the court finds clear and convincing evidence of ongoing danger, it may issue a longer-term risk protection order, typically lasting up to one year, though durations, extensions, and terminations follow specific statutory guidelines.

 Perhaps the most egregious line in the bill contradicts the foundational concept of “INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY” when it states “the respondent shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury tohimself or herself or others by having in his or her custody or control or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.” That sounds fair, doesn’t it?

Ok, can anyone answer this? Why is it so difficult for politicians to understand fundamental rights, how the judicial system should function and how ERPOs create opportunities for a high potential for criminal misuse of these laws? It is like they blindly sign onto bills provided by “external sources” that have failed in other states. Besides the glaring violations of the Second and Fourth Amendments, it also creates situations that abusers in domestic violence situations could exploit the process to disarm their victims, leaving them defenseless against further harm. 

In most abusive relationships, perpetrators often seek to maintain power and control, and a red flag petition could easily be exploited to strip a victim of self-defense options, especially since petitioners can include household members, family, or even ex-partners. This risk is amplified in ex parte proceedings, where temporary orders issued without the respondent present allows an abuser to initiate the process unchallenged at first and an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. 

As a survivor of domestic violence who endured severe abuse from my ex-husband, I can confidently say thatincorporating red flag laws into the already broken justice system will only create more problems. Nationwide, similar laws have been ineffective at stopping abusers and have unfortunately been manipulated by perpetrators and the courts themselves. The truth is there is no such thing as a ‘good’ gun control law, and that includes ERPO’s. Disarming potential victims through judicial mechanisms leaves women (and some men) more vulnerable rather than safer.

Another significant issue involves the potential for anti-Second Amendment activists or ideologically biased judges to exploit the law, using it to disarm law-abiding gun owners based on political views, minor disputes, or unsubstantiated claims rather than genuine threats. Furthermore, there is an incredibly low evidentiary threshold for temporary orders and the broad pool of potential petitioners creating opportunities for harassment or ideological targeting. When have we seen the “weaponization of the legal system” before?

Although Georgia has a strong tradition of gun rights, several attempts by the General Assembly over the past legislative sessions to preempt and/or block enforcement of similar measures have failed. As of early 2026, both SB–92 and HB–453 remain pending in committee, with no advancement to floor votes. As I mentioned in a previous Bearing Arms article, the Georgia General Assembly’s Republican majority has historically prioritized expanding gun rights; however, it was clear that the Majority Speaker wants only to attract independent and centrist-democrat votes. 

The bottom line is red flag laws have not demonstrated a clear or reliable reduction in firearm violence, and they raise serious concerns about due process, misuse, and inconsistent application, particularly in contentious domestic situations or where ideological bias may be present. Rather than meaningfully addressing the root causes of violence, these proposals risk creating the appearance of action without delivering measurable results. The General Assembly should move away from constitutionally questionable measures and instead revisit the 2020 Anti–Red Flag Second Amendment Conservation Act, reaffirming its commitment to civil liberties while pursuing policies grounded in evidence and effectiveness. Anything less concedes constitutional rights for the sake of political optics, rather than pursuing real solutions that protect the public.