'Red Flag' Gun Removal D.C. Discussion Includes PA Lawmaker

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA — A state lawmaker from suburban Philadelphia was recently invited to participate in a nationwide panel discussion about extreme risk protection orders, also known as "red flag laws," which allow authorities to temporarily take guns from individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

State Rep. Todd Stephens, a Republican from Montgomery County, joined legislative leaders from across the country on the recent video conference, which was designed to get input from officials about extreme risk protection orders, which allow family members, law enforcement, or other individuals to petition a court for a temporary order mandating the removal of firearms from individuals who are determined to be in crisis.

Stephens was joined by fellow legislators from Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Texas, according to the White House.

The meeting was called by officials with the Biden Administration in light of the president's signing of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law earlier this month.

The federal legislation includes $750 million for states to implement crisis intervention measures such as extreme risk protection orders, according to the White House.

During the meeting, leaders from states that have already passed ERPO legislation reportedly spoke about the affect the laws have had.

Stephens is one of the supporters in the Pennsylvania General Assembly of passing ERPO legislation here in the Keystone State.

The measure he introduced during the 2021-22 legislative session, and which is still pending, is House Bill 1903.

"The mass shootings and alarming suicide rate across the country argue for legislation like this to disarm those who pose a threat to themselves or others before they act with gun violence," Stephens said in a statement this week after his participation in the D.C. panel discussion. "We must give family members and law enforcement a way to temporarily prohibit certain individuals from possessing firearms, and to relinquish any firearms they may currently have, to prevent them from doing harm until they can get the help they need."

Stephens' pending bill would allow a judge to "take the precautions necessary when provided with clear and convincing evidence the subject poses an extreme risk to himself or herself or others," according to a news release.

If a court agrees to issue the ERPO, the information would be immediately submitted to the Pennsylvania State Police to prevent the person from purchasing additional firearms as well, according to Stephens' office.

In a sponsorship memo written in March 2021, Stephens, a former prosecutor, noted that currently in Pennsylvania the only steps that be taken if someone is in crisis is to involuntarily commit the individual for psychiatric care, something that "has a very narrow scope," and for which many individuals in crisis are not eligible.

Stephens wrote that an extreme risk protection order would be another way to provide "much-needed due process protections to gun owners while equipping families and law enforcement with a tool to prevent a gun owner in crisis from finding a long-term solution to what is most often a short-term crisis."

"It is a limited, measured response that will reduce suicides in Pennsylvania," Stephens previously wrote.

Not everyone is on board.

Joshua Prince, a Pennsylvania attorney from Berks County specializing in firearms laws, is critical of extreme risk protection orders.

"One wonders, if the individual constitutes an 'extreme risk' to himself or others, why wouldn't the person simply be committed to a hospital under the Mental Health and Procedures Act?" Prince wrote in a blog post back in 2019, when the ERPO issue was first gaining traction. "Why isn't he/she being detained at a hospital, jail or other facility? Why isn't he/she divested of other objects, which can cause serious bodily injury or death to multiple others, such as cars, planes, gasoline, knives ... etc?"

More can be read in Prince's blog post here.

The Biden Administration claims that ERPOs "reduce gun violence and save lives," and the Department of Justice has already put forth what it calls model legislation that states could borrow from if looking to enact similar measures at the local level.

More information about the model legislation can be found here.

Some critics counter that the so-called 'red flag' laws could potentially be abused.

The National Rifle Association has come out against such laws, saying they appear to give the government the ability to confiscate guns from Americans without due process of law.

"Aside from allowing run-of-the-mill malicious actors to indulge personal grudges against law-abiding gun owners, in the current politically-charged environment these laws enable the government to target those with First Amendment-protected political views the government disfavors," the NRA wrote in a piece back in June.

The NRA cited a case in which failed Democratic presidential candidate Eric Swalwell, a U.S. representative from California, tweeted about conservative commentator Ben Shapiro regarding comments Shapiro had made in 2019 about his willingness to defend his family with a firearm.

Swalwell had reportedly tweeted, "Reason, 1,578 America needs red flag laws."

The NRA claims that this type of legislation allowing the removal of guns from individuals could be "weaponized against political foes."

In Pennsylvania, while Stephens, a Republican, is the sponsor behind House Bill 1903, most of the co-sponsors who signed onto the bill are Democrats.