HELENA - Proponents of a bill that would prevent local governments from enacting red-flag gun laws say these regulations are unconstitutional. But opponents say they can be important in preventing gun violence.
A red-flag law, or an extreme risk protection order, is a temporary order that a judge can place on a person requiring them to temporarily surrender their firearms if the judge decides there is a high risk to others or to the individual.
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have implemented red-flag laws, according to the University of Michigan Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention. Montana does not currently have any red-flag laws.
Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, is sponsoring House Bill 809, arguing it is unconstitutional to take away someone’s right to bear arms if they are not convicted of a crime. Mitchell said at a committee hearing for the bill on Monday that it is a preemptive strike to protect Montanans’ Second Amendment rights.
“The bottom line, you cannot strip constitutional rights based on accusations alone,” Mitchell said. “If someone is truly dangerous, they should be charged, tried and convicted, not disarmed through judicial tyranny.”
But Kelsen Young, speaking on behalf of the Montana Domestic and Sexual Violence Coalition, said red-flag laws can help prevent violence in domestic situations.
“In some situations, we really do believe that ERPO orders would be helpful, especially in regards to families that are experiencing violence as it relates to mental health,” Young said. “And so for that reason, and also because we believe strongly in local control for these issues, we oppose this bill.”
A proposal to implement red-flag laws in Montana failed in the 2023 session.
Emma White is a reporter with the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Broadcasters Association, the Montana Newspaper Association and the Greater Montana Foundation. White can be reached at emma.white@umconnect.umt.edu.
