Should Congress Fund State "Red Flag" Laws to Temporarily Remove Guns From At-Risk People?
The bill would fund extreme-risk protection order laws. Supporters cite suicide and violence prevention; opponents cite due-process concerns. Where do you land?
Weigh in
The case for
Red flag laws let courts temporarily remove firearms from people found to pose a danger to themselves or others.
Source: Giffords Law Center →The case against
Critics argue such orders can restrict gun rights without adequate due-process protections.
Source: ACLU →My Democracy doesn’t take a side — you choose your position below, and your message carries it. Sources represent one organization on each side; they don’t reflect My Democracy’s position.
This campaign is about this bill
S. 889: Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act of 2025What it does
Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act of 2025This bill establishes grants to support the implementation of extreme risk protection order laws at the state and local levels, extends federal firearms restrictions to individuals who are subject to extreme risk protection orders, and expands related data collection. Extreme risk protection order laws, or red flag laws, generally allow certain individuals (e.g., law enforcement officers or family members) to petition a court for a temporary order that prohibits an at-risk individual from purchasing and possessing firearms.Among its provisions
Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mar 6, 2025)
10 more to reach 10
Take Action
What’s your position?
Both sides are laid out above. Your message will carry your position — My Democracy doesn’t take a side.