MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota implemented a new “red flag” law on January 1, bringing both anticipation and confusion about its practical implications. Individuals seeking to utilize this legislation to have a loved one’s firearm confiscated due to perceived threats are met with uncertainty.
Enacted by the 2023 Minnesota Legislature, the red flag law joins a growing number of similar statutes in 21 other states and the District of Columbia. Aimed at addressing concerns about individuals possessing firearms and the potential risks they pose to themselves or the community, Minnesota’s version is officially known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order law.
The law offers two types of orders: temporary and permanent. Forms for filing petitions are currently accessible on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website. Petitioners have the option to virtually appear for all proceedings and must present “clear and convincing evidence” to justify the necessity of the order. This standard, while substantial, is lower than the criminal burden of proof required beyond a reasonable doubt.
During a recent interview on WCCO Sunday Morning at 10:30 a.m., Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson, a veteran with 33 years of law enforcement experience, shed light on who can file an order. He stated, “You can file an order if you are a spouse or domestic partner, a roommate, or a child or parent, or someone who is involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship with an individual.”
Gun rights advocates remain vocal about their apprehensions, fearing that the law may lead to unwarranted firearm seizures driven by personal motives. Individuals named in a petition and facing potential gun removal can request a hearing through the Minnesota Judicial Branch website. Ultimately, judges in local district courts will decide whether a firearm should be taken away.
As the state implements this new law, the coming months will provide insights into its effectiveness and impact. Supporters echo Governor Tim Walz’s sentiment, emphasizing that if the law saves even one life, its implementation will be considered worthwhile.