Bill Overview
Title: Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2021
Description: This bill authorizes and establishes procedures for federal courts to issue federal extreme risk protection orders. Additionally, the 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, the bill authorizes a family or household member, or a law enforcement officer, to petition for a federal extreme risk protection order with respect to an individual who poses a risk to themselves or others; directs the Department of Justice to establish a grant program to help states, local governments, Indian tribes, and other entities implement extreme risk protection order laws; extends federal restrictions on the receipt, possession, shipment, and transportation of firearms and ammunition to individuals who are subject to extreme risk protection orders; and requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation to compile records from federal, tribal, and state courts and other agencies that identify individuals who are subject to extreme risk protection orders.
Sponsors: Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6]
Target Audience
Population: people impacted by Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act globally
Estimated Size: 50000000
- Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) or red flag laws are primarily applicable to individuals who are considered a danger to themselves or others; thus, people at risk of gun violence or self-harm could be directly impacted by this bill.
- Family or household members, as well as law enforcement officers, who will be petitioning for these orders, would also be directly impacted as they engage in the legal process of seeking such orders for individuals they deem at risk.
- State and local governments, along with tribal entities, will be involved as they implement these laws, so officials and administrators within these bodies will be involved.
- This bill also affects gun owners whose rights to gun possession may be temporarily limited by these orders. Thus, any individual who comes under such an order will experience direct effects, which includes changes to their legal right to possess firearms.
- Courts and other legal entities processing these orders and maintaining databases will see changes in their operations and responsibilities.
- Communities and society at large may see shifts in safety dynamics and legal precedent, especially in handling individuals considered at risk.
Reasoning
- The Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act primarily targets individuals deemed to pose a risk to themselves or others with firearm access, which suggests a significant direct impact on gun owners.
- Family or household members, along with law enforcement, are directly impacted due to their roles in petitioning for orders, affecting their emotional, social, and logistical landscapes.
- Budget constraints imply a need to strategically allocate resources, possibly prioritizing areas or populations with higher risks of gun violence or self-harm.
- State and local governments, along with tribal entities, comprise a significant portion of the stakeholder base as they implement and manage these policies.
- The overall impact may also extend to societal perceptions of safety and gun ownership rights, influencing wellbeing indirectly across communities.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the idea behind the policy because safety in the community is very important to me as a teacher and a parent.
- I'm concerned about how it might affect my husband's ability to access firearms, which he uses for hunting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Police Officer (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives us more tools to protect the community, but there are concerns over rights infringement.
- I think it could make families and community members more cooperative with law enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Community Activist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for protecting vulnerable individuals in our community.
- However, implementation must be closely monitored to ensure it doesn't disproportionately affect marginalized groups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
College Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel indifferent but recognize the policy's potential to reduce violence in communities.
- I'm wary about potential misuse or wrongful accusations against innocent people.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Gun Store Owner (Charleston, WV)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried this could impact my business if customers face undue restrictions.
- However, I understand the need for safety and responsible gun ownership.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Santa Fe, NM)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have advocated for this kind of policy for many years to protect communities.
- I hope it helps prevent tragedies, especially among the youth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Columbus, OH)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I generally trust these policies to make real change but worry about potential overreach.
- Contemplating its larger implications on society and individual freedoms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Journalist (Brooklyn, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited to see federal action on something I've been reporting about for years.
- Hoping it will lead to an increase in accountability and transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Lawyer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I perceive this policy as an infringement on constitutional rights and gun ownership.
- Concerned about potential abuses and the slippery slope effect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Social Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be transformative in how we manage at-risk populations.
- I'm wary of its potential stigmatization of mental health conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The federal budget impact is heavily influenced by the scale and uptake of grant allocations to local and state governments for implementing ERPO laws.
- Data infrastructure and inter-agency coordination costs for capturing and managing protection order records could add to the financial burden.
- The bill's potential deterrent effect on gun violence might lead to longer-term cost savings, though these are difficult to precisely quantify.