The bill adds a new federal ERPO statute (18 U.S.C. §935) authorizing U.S. district courts to issue ex parte and long‑term Federal extreme risk protection orders that prohibit an individual from purchasing, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition in or affecting interstate commerce. It sets different evidentiary thresholds (probable cause for ex parte relief; clear and convincing evidence at a hearing for long‑term relief), prescribes physical surrender or removal of firearms and permits to the U.S. Marshals Service or designated law enforcement officers, and ties orders into the national background‑check system.
Beyond the federal order itself, the measure amends section 922 to make ERPO subjects federally prohibited possessors, requires court reporting and NICS updates, creates a grant program (COPS) to incentivize State/Tribal ERPO laws and training, and directs the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to produce a model policy and district‑level outreach. The package combines immediate removal authority with procedural protections, training mandates, and data reporting — a national overlay that will change how courts, Marshals, and law enforcement handle high‑risk individuals and seized firearms.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a federal ERPO statute allowing district courts to issue short ex parte orders and 180‑day long‑term orders (renewable) that bar firearm possession and require surrender to U.S. Marshals or designated officers; integrates orders into NICS and makes violation subject to forfeiture under §924. It also funds grants, training, and reporting.
Who It Affects
U.S. district courts, the U.S. Marshals Service and designated state/local officers, Federal and state law enforcement, petitioners (family members and officers), respondents (gun owners), mental‑health agencies, and the NICS infrastructure.
Why It Matters
This bill establishes a federal pathway for ERPOs rather than leaving them solely to States, creating nationwide data flows to background‑check systems and federal prohibitions that can be enforced across jurisdictions — while adding new operational burdens on courts, Marshals, and law enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 2 adds a new §935 to Title 18 and builds a federal ERPO regime. Family or household members and law enforcement officers may file petitions in U.S. district courts.
The statute distinguishes rapid emergency relief (ex parte orders) from longer, adjudicative orders: an ex parte order requires a sworn affidavit and a probable‑cause finding and expires after 14 days unless a long‑term order is issued. If the court issues or considers a long‑term order, the petitioner must prove risk by clear and convincing evidence at a hearing; the long‑term order may last up to 180 days and can be renewed following notice and another hearing with the same evidentiary standard.
The bill prescribes how firearms, ammunition, and permits are surrendered. Service is generally by personal delivery by a U.S. marshal or a law enforcement officer designated by a marshal.
The statute requires immediate surrender or gives the respondent the option to have firearms sold to a federally licensed dealer in limited circumstances; when personal service or removal is not feasible, the respondent must surrender items within 48 hours. Receiving officers must issue receipts and file originals with the issuing court, and attempted re‑access triggers seizure/forfeiture under §924(d).
When orders are dissolved or expire, the Marshals Service must confirm post‑order eligibility through NICS and other databases before returning property.To operationalize the system, the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts must produce a model policy focused on accessibility and weekend/after‑hours filing, and the Attorney General must receive electronic notices within 2 court days when orders are issued, dissolved, or expire; the AG is required to update background‑check databases promptly (the bill sets a 5‑day target). The statute also creates a COPS Office grant program to reward States and Tribes that enact substantially similar ERPO laws, funds training for law enforcement and court personnel, mandates bias‑and‑de‑escalation‑focused training for Federal officers, and requires annual reporting on petitions, outcomes, demographics, and firearms removed.
The Five Things You Need to Know
An ex parte federal ERPO expires 14 days after issuance unless the court moves to a long‑term hearing.
A long‑term federal ERPO can last up to 180 days; the petitioner must prove risk by clear and convincing evidence at a hearing.
If the marshal or designated officer cannot take custody at service, the respondent must surrender firearms, ammunition, and permits within 48 hours.
Courts must notify the Attorney General, relevant mental‑health agencies, and local law enforcement within 2 court days of issuance, dissolution, or expiration; the Attorney General must update background‑check databases within 5 days.
The bill authorizes criminal penalties for knowingly filing materially false or frivolous ERPO petitions (up to $5,000 fine, up to 5 years imprisonment, or both).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Federal ERPOs: who can petition and basic definitions
Defines key terms, including who counts as a family or household member, what constitutes a Federal order, and who may petition (family/household members and law enforcement). This framing matters because the statute adopts a broad family/household definition (including dating partners, co‑parents, former cohabitants, guardians, and a range of kin), expanding the set of private actors who can invoke federal relief.
Ex parte relief, hearings, standards, and durations
Sets the emergency vs. adjudicative sequence: ex parte orders require a sworn affidavit and probable cause and typically must be decided the same day; they expire after 14 days. If an ex parte order is served, the court must hold a hearing within 72 hours (or otherwise within 14 days) to determine long‑term relief. For long‑term orders, the petitioner bears the burden and must meet the clear and convincing standard; denial dissolves any ex parte order. The long‑term remedy is limited to 180 days but can be renewed after notice and a hearing using the same procedures.
Surrender, custody, receipts, return, and mistaken ownership
Provides a detailed operational protocol for handling firearms and permits: the marshal or a designated law‑enforcement officer serves orders, requests immediate surrender or conducts removal, and may accept sales to FFLs at the respondent’s option. Officers issue receipts at surrender and must file originals with the issuing court within 72 hours. On dissolution or expiration, the Marshals Service must verify the respondent’s legal eligibility through NICS and other systems before returning property, and courts can order transfer of items improperly seized to rightful owners who can lawfully possess them.
Deterrence and federal prohibition linkage
Creates a penalty for knowingly submitting materially false or frivolous petitions (fine and/or imprisonment) and amends §924(d) and §922 to make being subject to an ERPO a federal firearms‑possession disqualification. That linkage means an ERPO will operate as a federal prohibition in background checks unless and until the order is dissolved or expires and databases are updated.
Model policy, reporting, and training mandates
Directs the AOUSC to draft a model policy emphasizing accessibility, weekend/after‑hours filings, and coordination with State/Tribal partners; mandates electronic individual notices for issuance/dissolution and an annual report with disaggregated data; and requires Federal agencies to train officers on bias, de‑escalation, domestic‑violence sensitivity, crisis intervention, and referral pathways. Training development must consult civil‑society and subject‑matter experts.
NICS and statutory conforming edits
Amends section 922 to add ERPO subject status to the list of federally prohibited possessors and tweaks NICS‑related statutory language. Separately, it amends 28 U.S.C. §534 to permit courts and criminal‑justice agencies to include ERPO records in national criminal information databases, while instructing destruction of those records when the order ends.
COPS grant program to incentivize State/Tribal ERPO laws
Creates a competitive grant stream (administered by the COPS Office) for States, Tribes, units of local government, and other entities located in States/Tribes that enact substantially similar ERPO statutes. Grants may fund personnel, training, forms, storage and removal protocols, public outreach, and subgrants to community organizations; applicants must dedicate 25–70% of funds to law‑enforcement training and submit annual reports mirroring federal reporting requirements.
Full faith and credit for State/Tribal ERPOs
Requires other States and Tribes to give full faith and credit to ERPOs issued by a State or Tribal court that enacted qualifying legislation, subject to notice/opportunity to be heard requirements; clarifies Tribal court civil jurisdiction for issuance and enforcement within Indian country.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Family and household members: The statute explicitly authorizes them to petition federal courts and provides a clear, fast pathway (ex parte relief) to remove firearms temporarily when they perceive imminent danger.
- People at imminent risk and potential victims: Immediate surrender protocols and a federal prohibition tied to NICS can quickly reduce an at‑risk individual’s access to firearms, which evidence links to lower short‑term suicide and interpersonal‑violence risk.
- Courts and jurisdictions with limited State ERPO laws: The bill creates a federal venue and a model policy, plus grant money, enabling uniform procedures and operational support where State systems are absent or inconsistent.
- Mental‑health and social‑service providers: The law’s training and referral provisions push for structured pathways to connect people subject to ERPOs and related victims to behavioral‑health and social services.
- States and Tribes that enact compatible laws: The COPS grant program gives fiscal incentives and training resources to jurisdictions that pass substantially similar ERPO statutes.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Marshals Service and designated law enforcement: They must serve orders, take custody of firearms, manage storage/logistics, issue receipts, and coordinate returns — an operational and fiscal burden that the bill does not fully fund.
- Federal courts and clerks: Courts will handle expedited filings and emergency hearings (including weekend/after‑hours work), docketing receipts, and complying with reporting timelines, increasing caseloads and administrative work.
- Respondents and gun owners: Individuals subject to ERPOs will face immediate loss of firearms and permits, potential criminal exposure for false petitions, and the burden of proving eligibility to regain firearms after order expiration.
- State and local agencies implementing ERPOs: Although grants are available, local programs will still need to invest resources in storage, trained personnel, community outreach, and database integrations.
- Defense counsel and public defenders: The due‑process framework will likely increase demand for counsel and court resources for hearings and renewals, particularly for indigent respondents seeking appointed representation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is immediate harm prevention versus individual liberty and federalism: the statute gives federal courts and Marshals the power to remove firearms quickly to avert imminent injury, but that power can deprive individuals of constitutionally protected interests before a full hearing and places federal infrastructure and State partners under operational strain — a trade‑off between rapid protective action and robust due‑process, resource, and jurisdictional concerns.
The bill creates a federal ERPO pathway that sits alongside — not instead of — State and Tribal ERPO regimes. That produces multiple practical tensions.
First, enforcement logistics are significant: the U.S. Marshals Service and designated local officers take on custody, storage, and return logistics for firearms and permits; the statute builds procedural steps (receipts, filings, background checks) but does not appropriate a dedicated funding stream for long‑term storage or the staffing needed for nationwide implementation. Second, the process design balances speed and process by allowing ex parte orders on probable cause and then a 72‑hour/14‑day hearing window for long‑term relief with a clear‑and‑convincing standard.
Swift removal reduces imminent danger but raises the risk of erroneous deprivation; the bill imposes penalties for false petitions, but civil and criminal remedies will not fully eliminate misuses or address chilling effects on firearm owners or victims who fear consequences.
Privacy and data management also matter. The statute authorizes inclusion of ERPOs in national criminal information databases and requires notice to the Attorney General within two court days, with a target of five days to update NICS — which is fast operationally but raises accuracy concerns.
The bill requires destruction of records when orders expire, yet retention and cross‑system harmonization practices are left to implementing agencies. Finally, there are equity risks: the law mandates bias‑focused training and data collection, but disparate impacts could arise in petitioning and enforcement, and resource gaps across rural versus urban jurisdictions or among Tribes may produce uneven access to protections and burdens.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.