Bill to allow 'red flag' firearm orders fails to advance after heated debate over due process and scope

Senate Bill 211, a proposed extreme-risk protection ("red flag") law that would allow a district attorney to petition a court to restrict a person—s access to firearms when evidence shows a risk of imminent harm, did not advance from the Senate Judiciary C committee after a divided hearing and a recorded roll-call vote that produced objections.

Senator Carter, the bill—s sponsor, said the measure creates a civil petition process in which a district attorney can seek an order when probable cause shows a person poses an imminent risk to self or others and possesses firearms. Carter said the statute is intended to address gaps in existing law, such as the difference between behaviors that require a psychiatric commitment and the warning signs often seen before mass-shooting events or domestic-violence escalations. "There are certain people that display red flags, showing that they're a danger to others and those individuals should not be allowed to possess a weapon," Carter said.

Opponents included representatives of the Louisiana Shooting Association, the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights and shooting organizations. Dan Zelenka, president of the Louisiana Shooting Association, told the committee the bill is worse than prior versions because it permits seizure of firearms before a hearing, removes certain due-process protections and can produce a permanent loss of permitless carrying even after an order expires. Zelenka said the bill treats ordered individuals like convicted felons for federal background reporting (NICS) and noted the bill limits how often a person can challenge the order. He said existing civil-commitment, domestic-violence and criminal laws already address dangerous individuals.

Kelby Senor of the National Rifle Association said there is no conclusive evidence red-flag laws reduce violent crime or mass shootings and expressed concern that the bill would strip Second Amendment protections without sufficient due process. Everett Bodie of the Louisiana Shooting Association reiterated that criminal statutes, involuntary commitment laws and domestic-violence restraining orders already provide tools to remove firearms from dangerous people and said this bill duplicates and complicates existing processes.

Supporters, including some district attorneys and public-safety advocates, urged the panel to adopt the measure. Senator Barrow described the bill as bipartisan and told colleagues she had worked to incorporate amendments used successfully in other states. Barrow said she was willing to accept additional due-process safeguards, including prompt service and notice to respondents and immediate ability to respond to petitions.

The committee took a roll-call vote on Senator Barrow's motion to report the bill favorably; several senators voted no and the motion failed. The committee then voted to defer the measure for further consideration. The sponsor said he would continue to work on amendments; no final vote on the substance of the bill was recorded in committee.

Witnesses cited constitutional concerns, NICS reporting implications and practical questions about who would enforce orders and how individuals could restore rights after an order expired or was vacated. The committee recessed the item and deferred the bill pending further work.