In the year since it took effect, Michigan’s Extreme Risk Protection Order law has resulted in nearly 300 firearm restraining orders granted, mostly against men, data released Thursday by the State Court Administrative Office shows.
Dubbed the “red flag law,” Michigan’s ERPO regulations were signed into law in 2023 and took effect on February 13, 2024, the one-year anniversary of the mass shooting that killed three students and injured five more at Michigan State University. The law allows family and household members, certain medical professionals and law enforcement officers to petition for an ERPO against an individual they believe is a risk to themselves or others if they possess a firearm.
Between the day the law took effect and the end of 2024, there were 391 petitions were filed requesting ERPOs, 287 of which were granted. Eight were initially issued and then rescinded, 84 were denied, six were withdrawn by the petitioner and another six were open cases at the time of the data pull.
Of the 287 people who became subject to the orders, at least 31 were charged with 74 criminal offenses within 30 days of the order’s entry, with the most frequently occurring charges being domestic violence and assaulting or resisting a police officer. Available data shows none of the charges issued were for noncompliance with an ERPO, but 22 of the charges were related to firearms or ammunition.
Although demographic data for the recipients of ERPOs is incomplete due to race, age and sex fields not being mandatory to complete on complaint forms, available data shows white males as the main subjects of petitions for the orders last year. Of the 391 petition subjects, 150 were white and 201 were male. Of that same group, the gender of 158 is unknown, as is the race of 176.
The ages of 160 out of the 391 petition subjects are also unknown, the data available indicates most individuals who were petitioned against were in their 40s or younger.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) said though he voted against the law when it was before the chamber in 2023, he’s supportive of studies like the one released by the administrative office to track the effectiveness of the law and others like it.
“We should look at it,” Hall said. “I have Constitutional concerns about due process, that’s why I voted against it, but I voted for the safe storage laws. … I think we should keep looking at data points to see if they’re working.”
– By Lily Guiney
