Blumenthal Holds Hearing on Extreme Risk Protection Orders / "Red Flag" Laws

[WASHINGTON, DC] – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, held the first of a series of hearings on specific gun violence prevention measures, focusing on Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), also know as “red flag” statutes.

Blumenthal is one of the Senate’s leading advocates for the expanded use of ERPOs. Blumenthal and U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act in 2018, which would establish a federal process to permit family members to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and also worked together to develop a legislative framework to provide incentives for the expanded use of ERPOs by individual states. In addition, Blumenthal and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act in 2019.

“I hope that this afternoon at least we can focus on one topic where there does appear to be at least some measure of common ground: Extreme Risk Orders, also known as risk warrants. That is the name in Connecticut we have adopted for “red flag” laws,” Blumenthal said.

“Whatever you call them, we know they save lives. We know that “red flag” extreme risk orders save lives. They’re practical and proven tools that allow law enforcement, under some statutes and others, including family members, to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who possess and pose a danger to themselves or others. In other words, separate people from guns when they are in crisis. Firearms make dangerous decisions far more deadly and irreversible.”

In his opening remarks, Blumenthal focused on the impact ERPOs can have on preventing suicide, noting that “For people who seek to take their own lives, the fatality rate is approximately 85 percent with a firearm, it is 5 percent by any other method. Firearms are used in less than 6 percent of suicide attempts. But, they account for more than half of the suicide deaths.”

The transcript of Blumenthal’s remarks is copied below. 

I call to order this first meeting on the Subcommittee on the Constitution and welcome my colleagues, most especially, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, Senator Cruz. Thank you for your cooperation in scheduling this first hearing. I look forward to this kind of collaborative effort going forward. I know we have been joined by Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the committee. I will turn to you after Senator Cruz. We may be joined by Senator Durbin for some opening remarks as well.

Last month the Judiciary Committee held a very important hearing, as my colleagues know, on constitutional and common sense steps to reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country that has recently claimed so many lives in Atlanta, Boulder, Indianapolis, and elsewhere.

Gun violence is a real problem. We all know it. But there are also real solutions. I believe, strongly and passionately, that we have a path to put some of those solutions into law during this session. I believe we can with bipartisan cooperation.

I am not naive. I do not believe that all gun violence prevention proposals will be adopted by unanimous consent, but I hope that this afternoon at least we can focus on one topic where there does appear to be at least some measure of common ground: Extreme Risk Orders, also known as risk warrants. That is the name in Connecticut we have adopted for “red flag” laws.

Whatever you call them, we know they save lives. We know that “red flag” Extreme Risk Orders save lives. They’re practical and proven tools that allow law enforcement, under some statutes and others, including family members, to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who possess and pose a danger to themselves or others. In other words, separate people from guns when they are in crisis. Firearms make dangerous decisions far more deadly and irreversible.

To give you one example. Among commonly used methods of self-harm, firearms are by far the most lethal. For people who seek to take their own lives, the fatality rate is approximately 85 percent with a firearm, it is 5 percent by any other method. Firearms are used in less than 6 percent of suicide attempts. But, they account for more than half of the suicide deaths.

In 1999, my home state of Connecticut became the first in the nation to enact an Extreme Risk Order, we call it a risk warrant. Studies have shown that in the first 14 years of the Connecticut law, for every 10 to 20 risk warrants issued, at least one suicide was prevented. In addition, many who tried to take their own lives were compelled or persuaded to seek help, professional help that made a real difference in their lives. That isn’t some sort of abstract statistic. States across the country have used extreme risk or red flag statutes as critical suicide prevention tools.

In Portland, Oregon, law enforcement was able to remove ten firearms and bar future firearms purchases after a man called 911 and threatened to kill himself and his three-year-old son with a gun because he was frustrated that he was not able to make a child support payment.

The same is true probably in all of your states. I know you have heard these stories. I’m not going to recount more. But I will put my full statement in the record. These laws do not just prevent suicide, they have also been used to stop mass shootings, homicides, terrorist threats, and hate crimes. Authorities in Florida used these state extreme risk order law to remove an AR-15 from a high school student who had said he would kill himself and his ex-girlfriend if they didn’t get back together.

As my colleague, Senator Graham, has pointed out, the Parkland shooting resulted after the killer in that instance practically put an ad in the phonebook saying he was going to shoot people, but authorities there could not stop him for lack of a “red flag” statute. After it happened, they adopted one in Florida.

These laws are also bipartisan among the American public, in state legislatures, and in Congress. In fact polling has found that 84 percent of Americans, including 78 percent of Republicans, support “red flag” laws. There are now 20 jurisdictions, blue states and red states, with these critical tools in place and others are on their way to passing and implementing the laws.

President Biden has announced that the Justice Department will soon publish model legislation for states that will help them to adopt these statutes. I have worked closely with not only my colleague, Senator Graham, but also, Senator Feinstein, [and] Senators Rubio and Scott have introduced their own bill and I look forward to making progress.

Let me touch two points in conclusion.

First: Indianapolis. The tragic events in Indianapolis show just how crucial effective implementation and enforcement is to the success of these efforts. Indiana has a strong “red flag” law named in honor of a police officer who was killed in the line of duty in a situation that might have been prevented had a red flag been in place at that time.

Earlier this month as we all know, a shooter killed eight people in a FedEx warehouse in Indianapolis. Several months prior, police had taken a shotgun from him after his mother reported that he might try to commit suicide by cop.

Law enforcement knew he was dangerous. Prosecutors just did not use Indiana's “red flag” law to bar that individual from purchasing new guns. And he did, in fact, purchase two semiautomatic rifles in the months that followed, which he used in that massacre.

Some have said that Indianapolis shows “red flag” laws do not work and ought to be scrapped. I think that point is ridiculous. There are 6 million car accidents in the U.S. every year. That does not mean we throw out seatbelt requirements or speed limits. We insist on more effective enforcement of those laws that might have prevented those accidents or crashes or deaths.

The preventable loss of life in Indianapolis does prove that even in jurisdictions where these laws exist, effective implementation is critical.

We will hear today from witnesses who will tell us how federal grants would support training for prosecutors and others to enhance those states’ development and effective use and enforcement.

All of us know have been in law enforcement know, laws are dead letter unless they are implemented and enforced effectively, and our proposals on “red flag” statutes are designed to provide the resources, training, procedures, other kinds of basic nuts and bolts steps that are important here.

Due process. To those critics who raise the specter of due process concerns, let me just say, Extreme Risk Prders provide robust due process protections that comports with both the Constitution and the Supreme Court precedent governing due process considerations. And that is my goal here and in whatever we do formulating and passing “red flag” statutes, to provide models and require that those grants and resources provided to states are conditioned on due process protection.

These orders are temporary. They are used only by judges. The judges have to take evidence, the determinations are based on those evidence. The evidence is submitted under penalty of perjury. And when a temporary order is issued, but before it becomes permanent, the individual subject to it is provided with notice and an opportunity to both challenge the evidence against them and present evidence of their own. And once the order expires, the individual subject to it must have a firearm returned to them so long as they are not otherwise prohibited from having it.

So, I think we are in an era that feels very different about gun violence. I am hoping we can reach bipartisan consensus. Gun violence is not inevitable. Extreme risk order laws, “red flag” statutes, prove it.

I welcome my colleagues this afternoon and hope that we will indeed make progress. Thank you to all my colleagues. I turn to Senator Grassley. I understand he would like to be recognized because of time constraints. I am happy to do so.

-30-