Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
(“RED FLAG” LAW)
Analysis available at
House Bill 4145 as introduced http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Sponsor: Rep. Ranjeev Puri
House Bill 4146 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Kelly Breen
House Bill 4147 as introduced House Bill 4148 as introduced
Sponsor: Rep. Julie Brixie Sponsor: Rep. Stephanie A. Young
Committee: Judiciary
Complete to 3-8-23
BRIEF SUMMARY:
House Bill 4145 would, among other things, do all of the following:
• Create the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act.
• Require a court to issue an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) if a preponderance of
the evidence existed to support that a defendant poses a significant risk of self-injury
or injury to others by possessing a firearm and allow for an emergency ERPO without
first notifying the defendant under certain circumstances.
• Prohibit a restrained individual from possessing a firearm or a license to carry a
concealed pistol (CPL) while an ERPO is in effect.
• Specify who may file an action for a court to issue an ERPO, where and how an action
may be filed, and the information a complaint must contain.
• Prescribe actions a clerk of an issuing court, a law enforcement officer, and a law
enforcement officer must follow regarding an ERPO.
• Specify the information that must be included in an ERPO, including that the restrained
individual may not possess a firearm while the ERPO is in force.
• Require hearings to be held as prescribed in the bill.
• Allow an ERPO to be modified or rescinded.
• Allow a firearm if not relinquished or license to carry a concealed pistol if not
surrendered to be seized upon notification or service of an ERPO, require a receipt be
given for any firearm seized, require a seized firearm to be stored while the ERPO is
in force, and require the firearm to be returned when the ERPO expires or is rescinded,
if the individual is not otherwise prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.
• Prescribe penalties for a violation.
House Bill 4146 would include references to the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act and
ERPOs in provisions regarding a license to purchase, possess, carry, or transport a pistol and
eligibility for a concealed pistol license.
House Bill 4147 would prohibit a fee from being charged or collected for serving process
issued in an action brought under the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act and amend provisions
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 10
 regarding service of process in civil actions to conform with provisions in the Extreme Risk
Protection Order Act.
House Bill 4148 would place the maximum term of imprisonment for a felony violation created
by the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act in the sentencing guidelines.
House Bills 4146, 4147, and 4148 cannot take effect unless HB 4145 is also enacted.
DETAILED SUMMARY:
House Bill 4145 would create the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act to require a court to issue
an extreme risk protection order if, by preponderance of the evidence, the court determines that
a defendant (an individual against whom an ERPO is requested) poses a significant risk of self-
injury or injury to others by possessing a firearm.
In making a determination, the court would have to consider numerous factors listed in the bill,
which include, among other things, a history of the defendant’s being seriously mentally ill;
any history of attempted or threatened use of physical force against self or another individual
(whether or not a firearm was involved); and a previous conviction for certain crimes, such as
assault and battery, stalking, domestic violence, or cruelty or abuse of animals. A court would
be required to expedite and give priority to a hearing on the issuance of an extreme risk
protection order and other hearings under the act.
Who could file a request for an ERPO
Under the bill, certain individuals (referred to as plaintiffs) could file an action with a circuit
court requesting that an ERPO be entered. Only the following could file an action regarding a
defendant:
• A spouse or former spouse of the defendant.
• An individual who has a child in common with the defendant.
• An individual who has, or has had, a dating relationship with the defendant.
• An individual who resides, or has resided, in the same household with the defendant.
• A family member, defined to mean a parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild,
uncle or aunt, or first cousin of the defendant.
• A law enforcement officer.
• A mental health professional as defined in section 100b of the Mental Health Code. 1
Dating relationship would mean a relationship that consists of frequent, intimate
associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. The
term would not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between two
individuals in a business or social context.
1
Section 100b of the Mental Health Code defines mental health professional as an individual who is trained and
experienced in the area of mental illness or developmental disabilities and who is one of the following: a physician
or a psychologist, or a registered professional nurse, licensed master’s social worker, licensed professional counselor,
or marriage and family therapist who is licensed or otherwise authorized to engage in the practice of nursing, social
work at the master’s level, counseling, or marriage and family therapy under provisions of the Public Health Code.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4145 to 4148 as introduced Page 2 of 10
 How to file a complaint requesting issuance of an ERPO
The bill would do both of the following:
• Prescribe how and where to file a summons and complaint in circuit court on forms
approved by the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) in an action to request an
extreme risk protection order. The complaint would have to state facts showing that an
ERPO is necessary because the defendant poses a significant risk of self-injury or
injury to others by possessing a firearm.
• Require a complaint to include certain information, including the following:
o Whether the defendant is licensed to carry a concealed pistol and is either
required as a condition of employment to carry that pistol or is a law
enforcement officer or state or local corrections officer as listed in the bill.
o If the plaintiff knows or believes that the defendant owns or possesses firearms,
a statement of that knowledge or believe that also identifies the firearms.
A plaintiff could petition a court to issue, or a court on its own motion could issue, one or more
extended extreme risk protection orders on the preponderance of the evidence that the
restrained individual still poses a risk of self-harm or harm to others. Each extension would be
effective for one year after the expiration of the preceding order.
What an ERPO would do
An ERPO issued to a restrained individual would have to include the following provisions:
• A provision prohibiting the purchase or possession of a firearm by the restrained
individual. A valid, unused purchase license would have to be surrendered to a law
enforcement agency. (“Purchase license” commonly refers to the license obtained
under the handgun licensure act that is required for an individual to purchase, carry,
possess, or transport a pistol in Michigan. HB 4138 would expand the act to apply
several provisions, including a purchase license, to any firearm, not just a pistol.)
• A provision prohibiting the restrained individual from applying for a CPL and
suspending or revoking a previously issued license once the order is entered into the
state Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). The restrained individual would
have to surrender the license.
• A requirement that the restrained individual surrender all firearms in their possession
or control to a law enforcement agency designated on the order immediately after being
served the order.
• A specific description of any firearms to be surrendered or seized if identified by the
plaintiff.
• If the order was issued without written or oral notice (an emergency order), a statement
that a hearing will be held in a time specified in the bill and that a modification or
rescission of the order may be requested at that hearing.
• A statement that the restrained individual may, one time while the order is in effect,
file a motion to modify or rescind the order and that forms and filing instructions for
doing so will be available from the clerk of the court.
• A designation of the law enforcement agency responsible for entering the order into
LEIN and forwarding it to federal agencies. The restrained individual would have to
reside within the agency’s jurisdiction. 2
2
Handgun transactions are currently subject to the federal law on firearms purchases, which involves a background
check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) operated by the Federal Bureau of
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4145 to 4148 as introduced Page 3 of 10
 • A statement that certain penalties will apply for a violation of the order, including
immediate arrest, contempt powers of the court, an automatic extension of the order,
and criminal penalties including imprisonment for a misdemeanor or felony penalty.
• An expiration date that is one year after the date of issuance.
Possession or control would include, but not be limited to, actual possession or
constructive possession by which the individual has the right to control the firearm,
even though it is in a different location than the individual. Possession or control does
not require the individual to own the firearm.
Serving an ERPO/compliance hearing
An ERPO would have to be served personally by a law enforcement officer. It would take
effect and be enforceable immediately after being served on the restrained individual or after
the restrained individual receives actual notice of the order. The order would be enforceable
anywhere in Michigan by a law enforcement agency that receives or is shown a copy or that
verifies the order’s existence on LEIN or on an information network maintained by the FBI.
A court would have to schedule a compliance hearing to be held not later than 10 days after an
ERPO was served or after the restrained individual received actual notice of the ERPO. If the
restrained individual filed proofs that all firearms in their possession or control were
relinquished or removed, and that any license to carry a concealed pistol was surrendered, the
court could cancel the compliance hearing.
Emergency ERPO
An ERPO could be ordered without written or oral notice to the defendant if the court
determines on evidence of specific facts submitted under oath or affirmation clearly
establishing that immediate and irreparable injury will result from the delay required to
effectuate notice or that the notice will itself precipitate adverse action before an order can be
issued. A court would have to make a determination on a request for an order under this
provision not later than 24 hours after the request is filed. A hearing on the order would have
to be conducted not later than 14 days after the order is served or 5 days if the individual has a
CPL and is either required to carry the pistol as a condition of employment or is a law
enforcement officer as prescribed in the act.
Modification or rescission of an ERPO
An individual restrained under an ERPO could file a motion to modify or rescind the order at
any time and request a hearing under state supreme court rules. The restrained individual would
have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they do not pose a significant risk of
self-injury or others by possessing a firearm. One motion to modify or rescind the order could
be filed during the year the order is in effect, and one motion could be filed during the year an
extended order is in effect. If more than the allowed number of motions were filed, the court
would have to review the motion before a hearing on the motion was held and could summarily
dismiss the motion without a response from the plaintiff and without a hearing.
Investigation (FBI) in cases where an individual purchases a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer. The bill
would also require certain information to be forwarded to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF).
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4145 to 4148 as introduced Page 4 of 10
 After an ERPO is issued
Not later than 24 hours after an ERPO is issued, a restrained individual may do either of the
following: 3
• File with the court that issued the ERPO one or more proofs of relinquishment or
removal showing that all firearms previously in the individual’s possession or control
were relinquished to or removed by the local law enforcement agency designated in
the ERPO and that any concealed pistol license was surrendered to the county clerk as
required by the order and provisions of the handgun licensure act, and verify to the
court that at the time of the verification the individual does not have any firearms or a
CCW license in their possession or control.
• Verify to the court that both of the following are true:
o At the time the order was issued, the individual did not have a firearm or a
CCW license in their possession or control.
o At the time of the verification, the individual does not have a firearm or a CCW
in their possession or control.
If the above requirements 4 were not satisfied within 24 hours after the ERPO was issued, the
clerk of the court that issued the order would have to inform the local law enforcement agency
designated in the order of that fact. That law enforcement agency would have to make a good-
faith effort to determine whether there is evidence that the restrained individual has failed to
relinquish a firearm or a CPL in their possession or control as required. 5
Duties of the clerk of a court
Among other things, the clerk of a court that issues an extreme risk protection order would
have to do the following immediately after issuing an ERPO and without requiring a proof of
service on the restrained individual:
• Provide a true copy of the order to the designated law enforcement agency.
• Provide the plaintiff with at least two true copies of the order.
• If the restrained individual is identified as being an individual who has a CPL and
carries a pistol as a condition of employment or is in law enforcement, notify the
individual’s employer, if known, of the order.
• Notify the Department of State Police (MSP) and the clerk of the county where the
restrained individual resides of the existence of the order for purposes of performing
their duties under the handgun licensure act (which HB 4138 would amend).
• Inform the plaintiff that they may take a copy of the order to the designated law
enforcement agency to be entered into LEIN and provided to the FBI and ATF.
3
Note that this is triggered when the ERPO is issued, not when the restrained individual is served with the ERPO or
receives an oral notice of the ERPO.
4
Note that those provisions are permissive in the bill, not a requirement as described in this provision.
5
Note that, as written, the bill specifically allows, not requires, the individual to file proofs of relinquishment or
verification that no firearms or CPLs were under their control at the time the order was issued. Depending on how
promptly from the time an ERPO is issued to when a restrained individual receives a copy or oral notice of the order,
the 24-hour period may have already expired or may expire before the individual can choose to provide the information
to the clerk of the court.
House Fiscal Agency HBs 4145 to 4148 as introduced Page 5 of 10
 In addition, upon receiving proof of service or proof of oral notice filed by a law
enforcement officer who served an ERPO, the clerk would have to immediately notify the
designated law enforcement agency if any of the following occurs: