Colorado Senate moves to widen red flag authority despite due process warnings

February 5, 2026
Police officer knocking on a front door, symbolizing enforcement of Colorado’s expanded red flag law
By Shaina Cole

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Since its adoption five years ago, Colorado’s red flag law has not stayed static. Since its passage, lawmakers have kept returning to Colorado’s red flag law, expanding it piece by piece as new concerns arise. SB26-004 is the latest revision, reviving debate over how far intervention should reach — and how much due process should accompany it.

SB26-004 cleared the Colorado Senate on Feb. 3, passing on a 20–13 vote and moving to the House for further consideration. Sen. Nick Hinrichsen the only Democrat to oppose it. The bill revises the state’s Extreme Risk Protection Order system, often referred to as red flag orders, and prompted extended debate during second reading the day before final passage.

Supporters said the measure is intended to allow intervention earlier in crisis situations, while opponents are focused on how the revised process works once it is set in motion—arguing that the changes expand authority while limiting protections for people who may be subject to an order.

What the bill changes

Under SB26-004, the group of people who may initiate an ERPO petition is expanded. Under SB26-004, the list of who may initiate an ERPO petition would expand further. In addition to law enforcement, family members, and existing community petitioners, the bill expands that authority to include certain educational and health-care institutions, such as schools, colleges, hospitals, and behavioral health treatment facilities.

ERPOs are civil court orders, not criminal charges. That distinction shapes the process. Under the ERPO process, a judge can issue a temporary order without first hearing from the person named in the petition, allowing firearms to be removed before that person ever appears in court or is notified.

A hearing to challenge the order comes later, after the initial removal has already occurred.

The amended bill also provides broad good-faith immunity for individuals, institutions, and peace officers who file, investigate, or decline to pursue ERPO petitions. The statute does not include penalties for reckless or malicious filings and does not require audits or reporting to track how petitions are resolved.

Due process concerns raised on the Senate floor

During second reading debate on Feb. 2, Sen. Wilson warned that expanding who may initiate ERPOs “invites a flood of petitions that could result in the temporary or even year-long seizure of firearms from law-abiding citizens based on mere allegations of risk.” She said, “These are not convictions. These are civil orders issued unilaterally, often without the respondent even knowing until their door is knocked on by law enforcement.”

Wilson also pointed to the lack of confrontation built into the process. “The accused isn’t presented to confront their accuser or present evidence,” she said, adding that “the accuser gets to be anonymous behind the institution.” She continued, “No speedy trial, no jury, no cross examination — just a judge’s quick decision based on a one-sided claim.” 

Referencing recent Supreme Court precedent, Wilson said, “In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, we must ask, where is the historical tradition of disarming individuals preemptively without a criminal charge or trial? There isn’t one.”

When mental health care meets the ERPO process

Again and again, lawmakers raised questions about mental health and privacy, wondering how the ERPO process could change what patients are willing to share with counselors or doctors.

During the same debate, Sen. Rod Pelton said the measure could change how patients view therapists and doctors. “The bill erodes trust between patients and providers,” Pelton said. He warned that “if patients believe their therapist or doctor is a gateway to losing their constitutional rights, they may withhold information during sessions or avoid seeking help entirely during a crisis.”

Pelton said critics contend the bill “co-opts hospitals into anti-gun surveillance operations,” adding that “this shift — from care-providing to petitioning — transforms trusted institutions into legal actors, leading patients to view medical staff as arms of the state.”

How the process operates

As written, SB26-004 allows an authorized petitioner to file an ERPO based on reported concerns. A judge may issue a temporary order without hearing from the person named in the petition. Law enforcement may then remove firearms before that person has an opportunity to respond.

In the event that the petition is dismissed or expires, there is no provision for restitution, damages, or penalties to be levied against the petitioner. Legal costs, proceedings, and records relating to the petition all stay with the respondent.

Opponents contend this is significant because the law is based on an assumption of good faith but does not provide a means to deal with circumstances when this assumption is false.

Lack of recourse for misuse

While SB26-004 grants immunity to those who file or investigate ERPO petitions in good faith, it does not establish standards for identifying reckless or malicious filings. It also does not outline consequences when a petition is unfounded.

Critics say that means harm can occur even when an order is later lifted. If the process is misused, intentionally or otherwise, the statute does not include a built-in safeguard to prevent damage before it happens or a remedy afterward. Wilson summarized that concern during debate by saying, “This isn’t safety. It’s infringement, plain and simple.”

Minors and parental involvement

The bill explicitly includes minors as potential ERPO respondents. Under the bill’s language, an institution may initiate a petition involving a student without requiring parental initiation at the earliest stage.

Opponents say this raises questions about how adolescent behavior is interpreted and whether parents are excluded from the process until after an order is already in effect.

Public and political reaction

Reaction to the Senate’s vote extended beyond the Capitol as the bill advanced to the House.

House Republican Ava Flanell criticized the bill in a post following the vote, writing, “Democrats talk about prioritizing mental health, but then they push bills like SB26-004 that pressure mental health facilities to red-flag gun-owning patients.” She added, “If gun owners believe mental health care comes with the threat of being red-flagged, many will stay silent or stay away altogether.”

Alicia Garcia, director of the Colorado Federal Firearms Licensee Association, also commented on the vote, writing, “SB26-004 passes out of the third and final reading in the Senate, 20–13. We live in a state of tyranny.”

Some reactions came from private citizens. In a post responding to the vote, James Garcia wrote, “I genuinely want to know if ANY of the gun laws passed in Colorado in the past decade have resulted in anything other than attacking legal gun owners. Have they reduced gun crimes? Naw.”

Next stop: The House

The bill now goes to the Colorado House for consideration. Opponents are pressing lawmakers to examine the revised procedure and whether the impacted parties have any recourse for baseless petitions as the House starts to review the bill. As of publication, the House calendar does not list a hearing date.

RELATED POSTS

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque lobortis erat at consequat congue.

© 2026 Test RMV Theme. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy | Legal