- March 18, 2025
- Criminal Defense
One Year Later: Reviewing Michigan’s Extreme Risk Protection Order Act
Michigan’s Extreme Risk Protection Order Act (ERPO) became law on February 13, 2024, with the purpose of preventing individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms. Now, over one year later, we can begin to evaluate how the law has been enforced and its broader impact.
Filing of ERPO Petitions
The ERPO Act allows individuals such as law enforcement officers, healthcare providers, family members, and other acquaintances to petition for an order. Courts have seen a variety of petitioners utilizing this process. However, reliable statistics on the total number of ERPO petitions filed and granted within the last year are not yet publicly available. Reports from various legal professionals indicate that the standard of evidence and grounds for filing continue to be debated.
Standard of Evidence and Due Process
Under the ERPO Act, courts use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning an order can be issued if it is more likely than not that the respondent poses a danger. This lower threshold of proof, compared to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases, has raised concerns about potential due process violations. Ex-parte orders, which can be issued without the respondent’s prior knowledge, remain a contentious aspect of the law. Respondents who wish to challenge an order must navigate a legal process that some consider burdensome and procedurally complex.
Application of the Law
Judges have broad discretion in how they evaluate petitions, leading to inconsistencies in the application of the ERPO Act. There is variation in how different courts interpret the evidence presented and apply the statutory criteria, resulting in some petitioners facing stricter scrutiny than others. The lack of clear guidelines continues to be a challenge for uniform enforcement.
Implications for Gun Owners
The ERPO Act’s broad language means that individuals with no history of violence or criminal activity may still be subject to firearm confiscation if an order is issued. The process to contest an ERPO is available, but the burden of proof is on the respondent to demonstrate that they are not a danger. This aspect of the law remains an area of ongoing legal scrutiny.
How We Can Help
If you have been affected by an ERPO or have questions about your rights, the Law Office of John Freeman is here to help. Our experienced legal team understands the complexities of Michigan’s ERPO Act and can guide you through the legal process. We will evaluate your case, provide sound advice, and advocate for your rights. Contact us today for a free consultation.
Considerations Moving Forward
As Michigan’s ERPO Act continues to be enforced, further assessment and clarification may be necessary to ensure consistency and fairness. Potential amendments to improve procedural safeguards and provide clearer standards for issuance could enhance the law’s effectiveness and fairness.
Proven Success in Defending Against ERPOs
Attorney John Freeman has successfully represented clients facing ERPOs, working diligently to restore their gun rights and protect their reputations. His experience and thorough approach to challenging these orders have made a difference for individuals unfairly targeted by such proceedings. Let our firm put that same dedication to work for you.