Senate narrows but approves bill allowing institutions to petition extreme risk orders; key safeguards fail

The Colorado Senate on Feb. 2 advanced a measure that expands who may request extreme risk protection orders (IRPOs), voting to pass Senate Bill 4 on second reading after a day of amendments and heated debate.

Senate Bill 4, sponsored by Senator Sarah Sullivan, would add institutional petitioners — including some schools and health-care entities — to the list of parties authorized to seek temporary or longer-term IRPOs, which allow a court to order temporary removal of firearms when a person is judged to pose an imminent risk. Sullivan said the bill builds on existing law and outside research supporting the policy. “This bill has been in effect for over 6 years now with less than 3% of the petitions determined to be inappropriately used,” Sullivan said in floor remarks, and she urged colleagues to consider evidence from public-health researchers that IRPOs can prevent deaths: “for every 10 to 15 IRPOs granted, 1 suicide death can be prevented.”

Opponents warned the expansion risks eroding due process, chilling medical care and intruding on local control for schools. Senators who opposed the measure repeatedly argued that institutional petitioners could allow anonymous or semi-anonymous filings that would prevent respondents from confronting their accusers. “This bill institutionalizes hearsay accusations,” Senator Liston said, warning that a person could have guns seized without knowing who initiated the petition. Other senators urged stronger privacy safeguards under HIPAA and warned that the change could deter veterans and others from seeking care.

Floor action produced several technical amendments that were adopted (l012, l014, l019), but multiple amendments aimed at adding procedural or privacy safeguards were rejected on division votes. Proposals that failed included an amendment to require institutional petitions identify the individual within the institution who initiated the petition (L001), a requirement that institutional petitions be endorsed by three institution members (L003), a time limit requiring petitions be filed within 10 days of the petitioner’s last interaction with the respondent (L004), and proposals to remove hospitals or schools from the institutional-petitioner definition (L015, L005). There were also contested proposals to bar documented domestic abusers from using IRPOs to disarm victims; those amendments were debated and defeated (L006/L010).

Where votes were recorded, the committee of the whole report was adopted 21–12, and the Senate passed SB 4 on second reading by the same margin. The Senate clerk read the committee report and recorded that Senate Bill 4, as amended, passed second reading and was ordered engrossed and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Supporters cited public-health evidence and witness testimony from research institutions and medical campuses during committee hearings. Opponents highlighted constitutional concerns and potential administrative costs; one senator cited internal fiscal estimates discussed during debate, including projected increases in petitions and associated storage or legal fees, although the fiscal analyst told the Senate there was no change to the official fiscal-note estimate before the final vote.

What’s next: SB 4 will return to the Senate for third reading and final passage. If it passes final reading, the bill may be subject to legal challenges, as several senators predicted. The Senate’s recorded second-reading vote was 21 ayes and 12 noes.