A Triggered Nation: An Argument for Extreme Risk Protection Orders

In recent years, the U.S. has experienced an unprecedented number of mass shootings and other gun-related injuries and deaths. In spite of all of this gun violence, there is still an unyielding resistance against the passage of common sense gun laws. Many laws restricting large capacity magazines and gun silencers, for example, are continuously shot down by federal and state courts, and the National Rifles Association and its constituents in Congress continue to hitch their arguments to the decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In this time of political gridlock, perhaps the best solution is to find a middle ground. Such a middle ground exists in Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), which allow close friends, family, and law enforcement to file a petition barring a dangerous individual from possessing firearms and ammunition. While this law currently exists in eight states, it is far from being passed in the remaining forty-two states. Through an analysis of existing case law in each of the twelve federal circuits, this Note posits that the passage of ERPO laws is not only plausible in the jurisdictions of each of these circuits, but necessary in the fight to end gun violence in this country