Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act of 2025

Who is affected and how:

• People subject to ERPOs: Individuals who are found by a court—after notice and a hearing—to pose a danger to themselves or others and who are ordered to be temporarily prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms will become federally disqualified from firearm possession and will be recorded in national criminal information systems (including NICS). That prevents purchase or receipt of firearms through background checks and can be used in enforcement actions.

• Courts and judicial systems: State, Tribal, and local courts will need to issue orders that meet the federal criteria to trigger the federal firearms disqualification and reporting requirements. Courts will also need processes for timely reporting of orders into national databases and for providing required notice and hearing protections, including distinct rules for ex parte orders. Tribal courts are explicitly recognized as having full authority to issue and enforce ERPOs.

• Law enforcement and criminal justice agencies: Agencies must access, use, and rely on national databases containing ERPO data for enforcement and background checks. Law enforcement across States and Tribes are required to recognize and enforce out-of-jurisdiction ERPOs, which may increase cross-jurisdictional enforcement duties and training needs.

• States, Indian Tribes, and local governments: Those with existing ERPO laws can apply for grants to support training, court capacity, database reporting, and public outreach. Jurisdictions without ERPO statutes will face duties to recognize and enforce ERPOs issued elsewhere, potentially requiring new procedures or legal changes. Although grants are authorized to offset some costs, compliance could impose additional administrative and operational burdens on courts and law enforcement, creating potential unfunded compliance costs.

• Privacy and data-management stakeholders: Expanded collection and sharing of ERPO records into national criminal information systems raises data security, privacy, and record-retention issues for agencies that collect, store, and query those records.

Broader effects and risks:

• Civil liberties and due process concerns: The Act bars firearms possession after courts issue ERPOs that include danger findings; the statute conditions that prohibition on an order issued after a hearing with notice, but ex parte orders and the timing of notice and hearings remain sensitive points that could prompt litigation and civil-rights scrutiny.

• Interjurisdictional enforcement complexity: Requiring interstate and inter‑Tribal recognition increases operational complexity (service of process, verification of orders, enforcement logistics) and could raise constitutional questions (e.g., Full Faith and Credit considerations) depending on implementation.

• Operational costs vs. grant funding: The authorized grant program provides resources for implementation tasks (training, systems, outreach), but not all costs may be fully covered, creating potential unfunded mandates for some jurisdictions.

• NICS and background-check impact: Adding ERPO-related disqualifications and database entries will affect firearms transaction outcomes and may lead to additional NICS denials; federal and state agencies will need procedures to add, update, and remove entries accurately and promptly to avoid improper denials or delays.

Overall, the legislation creates a coordinated federal-state-Tribal framework to expand use, enforcement, and national reporting of ERPOs while adding a federal firearms prohibition tied to qualifying court orders; it will require significant administrative and procedural work by courts, law enforcement, and records systems and may prompt legal and privacy challenges.