H.R.2377 Federal Red Flag Gun Confiscation Passed in House

Ban Guns Red Flag Laws
Ban Guns Red Flag Laws

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)-– On April 8, 2021, Representative MCBath sponsored  H.R. 2377, a federal bill to authorize extreme risk prevention orders or “red flag” law.

Using the recent mass murders in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, as an emotional springboard to push passage of the law, Nancy Pelosi has pushed through the passage in the House of Representatives today, 9 April 2022. The vote was 224 to 202.

The most recent and comprehensive study on the Red Flag law in California showed no measurable effect on assault or fatal violence against others or self for an intensely covered four-year period, 2016 to 2019.

The Congressional Budget Office’s description of the bill is sparse. From cbo.gov:

H.R. 2377 would allow family members and law enforcement officials to file petitions in federal courts requesting extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) for the removal of firearms from people who are believed to present an extreme risk of harm to themselves or others. The bill would require the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to serve federal ERPOs, remove firearms if so ordered, and store firearms until a hearing can be held to determine whether the firearms should be returned to or kept from the respondent for a specific period.

The actual text gives much more problematic detail. The timing required is extremely fast, giving the judge little ability to determine how credible the alleged threats are. With the supposed dire consequences for failing to grant a petition, it seems very few would be denied.

Ex parte means the accused is not present. From the bill:

“(c) Ex parte orders.—

“(1) TIMING.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a court that receives a petition for an ex parte Federal order under subsection (b) shall grant or deny the petition on the date on which the petition is submitted.

(B) is for late submissions, which must be issued the next day.  The “evidence” includes “hearsay” evidence from third parties:


REQUIRED.—Before issuing an ex parte Federal order, a court shall require that the petitioner for such order submit a signed affidavit, sworn to before the court, that—

explains why such petitioner believes that the Federal order respondent
poses a risk of imminent personal injury to self or another individual,
by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; and

“(B) describes the interactions and conversations of the petitioner with—

“(i) the respondent; or

“(ii) another individual, if such petitioner believes that information obtained from that individual is credible and reliable.

The “factors to consider” by the judge are problematic. Here is the list:

(e) Factors to consider.—In determining whether to issue a Federal extreme risk protection order, a court—

“(1) shall consider factors including—

“(A) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent directed toward another individual;

“(B) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent directed toward self;

“(C) a recent act of cruelty to an animal by the respondent;


“(D) evidence of ongoing abuse of a controlled substance or alcohol by the respondent that has led to a threat or act of violence directed to self or another individual;


“(2) may consider other factors, including—

“(A) the reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;

“(B) a history of violence or attempted violence by the respondent against another individual;

“(C) evidence of an explicit or implicit threat made by the person through any medium that demonstrate that the person poses a risk of personal injury to self or another individual.

The last case, (C), is particularly worrisome.

How many people “talk big” on the Internet or on the telephone? The law is full of potential for abuse. A DC police officer telling a judge about Internet correspondence in Idaho might easily find a DC judge to “Red Flag” hundreds of people in Idaho which whom he has never had personal interaction.

The judge only needs to find “probable cause.” If the petition is granted (at this point, there has been no evidence presented by the accused. They do not even know the procedure is ongoing.)

Then all Firearms and ammunition and any permit, such as a concealed carry permit, must be immediately surrendered to the US Marshals or to other law enforcement personnel authorized by the US Marshals or sold through a Federal Firearms Dealer.

There is no option to have a third party hold the firearms.

The list of those who can ask for these orders is long and includes large numbers of people who may have a reason to use them to exact revenge.  They include:

“(A) parent, spouse, sibling, or child related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the respondent;

“(B) dating partner of the respondent;

“(C) individual who has a child in common with the respondent, regardless of whether the individual has—

“(i) been married to the respondent; or

“(ii) lived together with the respondent at any time;

“(D) individual who resides or has resided with the respondent during the past year;

“(E) domestic partner of the respondent;

“(F) individual who has a legal parent-child relationship with the respondent, including a stepparent-stepchild and grandparent-grandchild relationship; and

“(G) individual who is acting or has acted as the legal guardian of the respondent;

The bill allows any law enforcement officer to file such a petition. The officer only needs to believe the information they received is “credible and reliable.”  If the information turns out to be false, there is no penalty for the person who filed the petition if they reasonably believed the information received was “credible and reliable.”

The ex parte order does not require a hearing for the accused individual. A hearing must be held within 14 days or when an ex parte order is petitioned to be made into a long-term order, up to 180 days.  A hearing is required for a long-term order.

The penalty for false or frivolous petitions exists, but accusations would be tough to prove.

“(i) Penalty for false reporting or frivolous petitions.—An individual who knowingly submits materially false information to the court in a petition for a Federal extreme risk protection order under this section, or who knowingly files such a petition that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, except to the extent that a greater sentence is otherwise provided by any other provision of law, as the court deems necessary to deter such abuse of process.

“Knowingly submits” and “materially false information” are open to interpretation. They may be difficult to prove.  If an email says: “Time to water the Liberty Tree”, the phrase may be interpreted by some judges to meet all the requirements to issue one of these ex parte orders.

The person submitting the petition does not have to prove the target has any firearms or what such firearms might be.

If granted, the order requires the surrender of all firearms and ammunition immediately.  (Repetition intentional)

In this correspondent’s view, the bill is blatantly unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and, probably others.

Several states have passed legislation specifically to prevent such abuse of federal power.

As of this writing, the bill passed the house mere hours ago. It seems unlikely to pass the Senate, where 60 votes would be needed to overcome the filibuster.

There are squishy Republicans who might feel pressured enough by the Media to vote for this bill. The usual suspects would be:

Senators Mitt Romney (R-UT), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Possible additions would be:

Bill Cassidy (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

However, Senator Murphy (D-CT) is quoted in CNN as being against a federal Red Flag law:

 “I think there has been some lingering confusion,” Murphy said. “Past proposals have suggested a federal red flag law. I’ve actually never thought that was a good idea. I don’t think you want law enforcement to have to go into the federal courts to take, temporarily, firearms away from a dangerous individual. So we have to clean up some of the confusion around what we are proposing.”


At this point, either or both Second Amendment infringing bills (H.R. 7910 and H.R. 2377) passed by the House seem unlikely to pass in the Senate.

With a budding totalitarian administration in the White House, what seems unlikely becomes more common every day.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Perhaps the best presentation of evidence & legal meanings of what the 2nd A really is. Highly recommended before it gets yanked.

“We are not ready for what’s coming”.

Last edited 12 days ago by Tank
Doug G.

Once they are allowed to whittle away at this Right, it surely, as the sky is blue, tho progressives will say it’s not, will lead to more regulations on this and other Rights. Not One More. Is my stance. Not one more infringement of any Right. For any reason. I have contacted my Senators thru GOA and FPC. Have you yet? I would hope that every one reading this article would follow thru, and certainly if you took the time to write a comment, you certainly can make a phone call. It’s 202-224-3121, in case you didn’t know.

Doug G.

I’m leaving this here in case anyone wants to use part or all when sharing this article on social media. Have at it. I shared this article on my Facebook with the following heading: READ ALL OF THIS FIRST~ The US House just passed a “Red Flag (Emergency Protection Order) Law” that will now be sent to the Senate. Remember that Constitutional Amendment #4, your right to Due Process? You know, the right to face ones accuser, to get your day in court, make the State prove they had Probable Cause that you committed a crime, Your right to an… Read more »


Since Biden was installed as the President why would any person be unhappy will all the problems that this administration has invoked. The democratic party has never played by the constitutional it has been dishonest since well before John Kennedy was assassinated. That was no accident it was a political decision much like some of the Clintons decisions when Bill was President. What I am presenting is that struggle for power has never changed it what issue the democrats can use to the parties advantage.They have become very good at misleading the public mostly the black American population who has… Read more »

Last edited 14 days ago by john

the demoncrats started loading the government with followers after the civil war, did not win on battle field change the rules however you like

Deplorable Bill

Of all the frivolous laws that I have heard of this one has so much potential for abuse and abuse without reprocussions to the abuser that it is frightening in just it’s read. Anyone with an axe to grind against anyone else can legally SWAT anyone they want. The potential for ruined lives and lives lost is ever present. Ticked off neighbor, drug dealers trying to get rid of competition, jilted spouses, bad cops, bad feds, legislators trying to make political points etc etc are some of the possible abusers. History has shown us where there’s a will there’s a… Read more »


and this is why full auto is needed ,api rounds and incendiary light them up almost everything burns at those temps


I worked in the system and dont trust it . have seen das outright lie to get a conviction where the person should never have been arrested or charged the , police should have walked away THEY were in the wrong I have been a witness for defense where judge threw out case because of malfeasance on governments part


Usual suspect Murkowski (“R”-AK)

But for NRA’s phony As-Orange Alerts-cash, loyal American Joe Miller would be in her seat today.

And Pierre Delecto? So much for Utah being “conservative”. Thanks to the LDS mafia.

Last edited 14 days ago by Russn8r

Good afternoon DUMMY!! Who let you out of your cage??


Come on man don’t start that BS again. He hasn’t said anything to you at all. Just let it go.

Captn John

Oh my, I’m hoping to be wrong but see some dead enforcers in the future if anything like this goes through


Wondering why you are being voted down. Is it (1) because people do not like your reasonable supposition or (2) because they disagree with your hope – as in they wish for violence and law enforcement deaths.


that is a really good question , I see a law like this creating a blood bath for any group that tries to enforce it all it would take is one false flag and the world would crash in more and more the police have been made criminals by the laws they are told to enforce , this is one they better say no to

Ansel Hazen

I am a GOP town chairman. More and more people I talk to are sick and tired of the party’s bullshit and ready to take matters into their own hand should something like HR2377 bring a knock to their door. The State office ignores my calls for a more vocal stance regarding the 2A, and they protect Collins without admitting they do it.

All this gives rise to the question whether or not passage of such legislation might be in the end, the thing that finally rids this country of the progressive cancer within.


In one year new york city has lost more than 1,000 officers resigning and retiring because the refuse to enforce illegal rules and mandates current officer unfilled positions exceeds 2,500 ….911 you are 53rd in line wait time will be 2hours


Once again, this is boiler plate legislation now modified to fit federal courts. Key issue in all of these editions is the complete lack of sanction for perjury. Anyone who makes a false report or claim is shielded. There is a case in the California appeals courts involving exactly this issue. A false claim resulting is the seizure of a classic firearms collection and now the jurisdiction cannot seem to locate and present these firearms. This has been going on since 2016 and has cost the victim tens of thousands of dollars. This is how the Progressive New Left will… Read more »


i feal free to shoot anyone who comes to my door if dogs dont get them first , and they shoot one of mine I will shoot them and let the dogs tear them apart


cuba is growing north


Has been since the 1960’s or so. Come on down to Miami-Dade County and take a closer look. The only people speaking English in the Stephen P. Clark Center, main HQ of the County Government, are African Americans. But be advised that half of the “Cubans” you hear will actually be Venezuelans.

uncle dudley

If the senate even thinks about passing this communist bill, they need to add that the accused person whose firearms are being taken gets free legal council representation with the government picking up any fee’s.
It should not be a financial burden placed on someone whose constitutional rights are being abused.
Best thing the senate could do is can the entire bill.

Arkansas Rob

Two scenarios that are worrisome. 1. An abusive ex petitions to disarm the abused because (s)he “threatened the abuser with a gun.” Sounds like a great tool for the abuser. 2. A standoff situation like the Bundy Ranch in Nevada a few years ago, or the Malheur Preserve. Clearly the defensive use of firearms was a threat to one or more individuals, namely, the overreaching authority. Now they can get an ERPO to disarm the defenders. That’s not going to go well. In the second scenario, the resulting shootout proves that every gun owner is a threat to individuals in… Read more »


that is how they will play it and enforcers will be the enemy all of them , head shots in cars will be normal


Maybe every legal gun owner should fly a red flag in protest at every politicians office with a yellow x across the entire flag.

The republicans cowards that vote for any new firearm legislation should be voted out of office the names appear here in this article.

Wild Bill

The repubs have the November elections all sewn up. It is theirs’ to lose. Signing on to this legislation would do that. I’m hoping that the repubs are not that stupid. We’ll see.


How many repub senators are up for election in November ?


Should avg 16.67, since it’s 50-50, but it’s 20. 5 RINOs retiring, zip to lose. Add Pierre Delecto, Scuzzy Collins & Murky Murkowski. If they all vote cloture, only need 2 more.

Blunt, Roy (MO) – retiring
Boozman, John (AR)
Burr, Richard (NC) – ret
Crapo, Mike (ID)
Grassley, Chuck (IA)
Hoeven, John (ND)
Johnson, Ron (WI)
Kennedy, John (LA)
Lankford, James (OK)
Lee, Mike (UT)
Moran, Jerry (KS)
Murkowski, Lisa (AK)
Paul, Rand (KY)
Portman, Rob (OH) – ret
Rubio, Marco (FL)
Scott, Tim (SC)
Shelby, Richard (AL) – ret
Thune, John (SD)
Toomey, Patrick (PA) – ret
Young, Todd (IN)

Last edited 14 days ago by Russn8r
Doug G.

Call Congressional switchboard to leave a message with your Senator to OPPOSE HR-2377 at 202-224-3121. Call Now.


I didn’t call mine. It’s an idiotic waste of time to call committed gun grabbers in secure seats in a lost state. I called senators pro-gun states who actually might be receptive, like squishy Cynthia Lummis (“R”, Wyo). No reason not to.


Our side needs to FOCUS on senators who might actually listen, regardless of whether they’re in your own state. 4 of the 5 retiring “Republicans” are backing the sellout, joined by 6 others, so it passes cloture.

Not retiring:
Bill Cassidy
Susan Collins
Jon Cornyn
Lindsey Graham
Pierre Delecto
Thom Tillis



and marco rino is a sellout, if we can bring graham around he does get a following


Worrisome: 5 “Rs” retiring have nothing to lose. Add usual suspects Pierre Delecto, Scuzzy Collins & Murky Murkowski plus 2 more = 60 = cloture. And only takes 51 to change the rule & abolish filibuster, then it’s back to 50 plus Kamala Sutra for the tie-break.

See list below (above?) with retiring “Rs”.

Last edited 14 days ago by Russn8r

They need to vote for what’s constitutional and right for the country Period.. For them to vote for unconstitutional and tyrannical legislation because they have “nothing to lose” just makes them full blown tyrants and enemy’s of the state. Get some damn rope !


Yep. All of the retiring “Rs” voted for the coup d’etat on Jan 6, so don’t hold your breath.


john – you gave me an idea. How about if someone comes up with a sign that we can put on our front door saying something like: SORRY Officer but I have already been ‘red flagged’ there is nothing left. If you return please bring a warrant with specific items listed and where you got your information and/or probable cause. See the 4th Amendment for details. Have a nice day.


Didn’t any of these politicians watch ‘master minds’? I want that percussion rifle.. it has stories. They didn’t want to me to chase you but I like that and will use a spear haha


Translation please!


Republicans Voting For H.R. 2377

  • Fitzpatrick (PA)
  • Gonzalez (OH)
  • Jacobs (NY)
  • Kinzinger (IL)
  • Upton (MI)

Republicans who didn’t vote

  • Fitzgerald (WI)
  • Hollingsworth (IN)

Fitzpatrick turncoat from day one. Not surprising though.


Illinois’s Kinzinger is from the Illinois River Valley which is heavy with conservatives. He will have a hard time getting re-elected after his Treason! Go “River Rats!”


That’s why he’s not running again. But why did conservatives elect the freak to begin with? Maybe because too many assume anyone who was in the military is automatically conservative and loyal to the USA.


good guess, but many who have joined joined for a job


The Military Industrial Complex is NOT our pal.