How Do Extreme Risk Laws Work? 

Extreme risk laws (sometimes referred to as red flag laws) give families and law enforcement officers a way to ask a judge to temporarily prohibit an at-risk person from purchasing or possessing a gun. This is a non-criminal process that involves a court hearing and clearly defined due process protections.

How Can Extreme Risk Laws Save Lives?

Extreme risk laws are particularly effective in preventing suicide and mass shootings. 

Suicide

Temporarily removing access to firearms from someone who is at risk for suicide prevents suicide:

  • Suicide attempts with a gun are at least 40 times as likely to result in death as attempts made by ingesting drugs or poison or by cutting.1
  • 90% of people who survive their first suicidal act do not die by suicide later. 70% never attempt suicide again.2
  • Removing the most lethal means of suicide makes it more likely a person will survive a potential suicide attempt, which means temporary gun removal can save lives.3
  • Having a gun accessible at home increases the risk that an individual will die by suicide by 300%.4
  • Connecticut’s enforcement of an extreme risk law was associated with a nearly 14% decrease in gun suicides.5

Do Extreme Risk Laws Violate Our Constitutional Rights?

No, an extreme risk law, and the corresponding extreme risk protection orders (ERPO) do not violate any rights.

Second Amendment

The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment allows for firearm restrictions that are “presumptively lawful.”6

Due Process

An extreme risk protection order follows due process through the court system by allowing a judge to make an informed decision to temporarily remove firearms from people posing an imminent threat. 

Doesn’t Law Enforcement Already Remove Firearms From People Who Pose a Threat?

Sometimes. But, municipalities have been sued for this because they do not have the legal backing ERPO provides. Meanwhile, Chapter 51, which is sometimes invoked by law enforcement, is more complex than ERPO and is often inadequate for providing safety to someone who is suicidal.7

What Can I Do?

There is overwhelming support for an extreme risk law in Wisconsin. A Marquette Law School poll from March 2025 shows that 85% of Wisconsinites support an extreme risk law, including 79% of Republicans and 98% of Democrats.8

This makes it even more unacceptable that our lawmakers have failed to act. Demand that Wisconsin lawmakers pass an extreme risk law. Signing this petition will help us remind legislators that people want an extreme risk law to protect their loved ones. 

Henry’s Story

Henry had so many dreams and plans for the future. He wanted to become a musician and a video game designer and would have made these dreams come true. He could enter a room and brighten it with his smile, attitude, or just his presence. He made friends so easily and was true to each and every one of them. He supported them, guided them. What Henry brought to his friends, he also brought to the world: compassion for the vulnerable, weak, young, and old. Henry had a special sensitivity to the needs of others and helped in the gentlest ways. 

But Henry’s father, a former police officer, owned multiple firearms and was psychologically and emotionally abusive to Henry. Henry was hurting inside but felt he could not tell anyone what his father was doing without causing conflict and getting his father more upset. My son went from being a healthy, active, sixteen-year-old boy to being killed by his father. 

I will be a voice for my son. In honor of Henry, I will work tirelessly to raise awareness about domestic violence, share his story, and advocate for laws to disarm domestic abusers.  

Sincerely,
Henry’s Mother

If Henry’s story moves you, sign the petition to demand that Wisconsin lawmakers pass an extreme risk law.

Extreme Risk Law Printable Fact Sheet

Sources

  1. Conner, Andrew, et al. “Suicide Case-Fatality Rates in the United States, 2007 to 2014: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 171, no. 12, Dec. 2019, p. 885. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-1324.
  2. Owens D, Horrocks J, and House A. Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm: systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2002;181:193-199.
  3. “Gun Suicide across the States.” Brady, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 2019, www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/gun-suicide-across-the-states.
  4. Anglemyer, Andrew, Tara Horvath, and George Rutherford. “The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members: A Systematic Review and Meta‑analysis.” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 160, no. 2, 2014, pp. 101–110. Annals of Internal Medicine, doi:10.7326/M13‑1301.
  5. Kivisto, Aaron J., and Peter L. Phalen. “Effects of Risk‑Based Firearm Seizure Laws in Connecticut and Indiana on Suicide Rates, 1981–2015.” Psychiatric Services, vol. 69, no. 8, June 2018, pp. 855–862, doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201700250.
  6. District of Columbia v. Heller. U.S. Supreme Court, No. 07‑290, decided June 26, 2008, 554 U.S. 570. Supreme Court of the United States.
  7. Wisconsin Statutes Annotated. Chapter 51: State Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Developmental Disabilities and Mental Health Act. Wisconsin Legislature, updated through 2025 Wis. Act 6 and Supreme Court & Controlled Substances Board Orders filed before May 30, 2025, published under s. 35.18, https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/51.
  8. Franklin, Charles. Marquette University Law School Poll. 5 March, 2025. Web.