Concerning an individual's right to possess a firearm to the extent permitted by the constitution, and, in connection therewith, eliminating extreme risk protection orders.
HB26-1072 would declare that an individual has a constitutional right to own, possess, and use a firearm to the maximum extent allowed by the state and federal constitutions. The bill’s central policy change is the repeal of Colorado’s extreme risk protection order framework, including temporary extreme risk protection orders, which are commonly used to temporarily remove firearms from individuals found to pose a significant risk of harm.
Beyond repealing the red-flag law itself, the bill removes or revises several related statutes that reference extreme risk protection orders. It would eliminate court reporting requirements tied to those orders, remove references in concealed carry permitting rules, and strike ERPO-related content from firearm safety training, gun violence prevention education, automated protection-order notifications, and landlord/tenant documentation provisions. The bill also makes conforming changes to statutes that currently treat ERPOs as qualifying protection orders for certain legal purposes.
If enacted, the bill would substantially narrow Colorado law governing firearm restrictions by repealing article 14.5 of title 13 and related temporary order provisions, thereby ending the state’s extreme risk protection order process. It would also affect multiple statutes that currently incorporate ERPOs into court administration, concealed handgun permitting, public education, and protection-order notification systems, requiring those provisions to be deleted or revised. The bill would leave other protection-order laws in place, but it would remove ERPOs as a distinct legal tool for firearm removal and risk intervention.
The available legislative context suggests the bill was controversial and did not advance, as it was postponed indefinitely in the House Committee on State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs. The bill’s framing emphasizes constitutional firearm rights and limits on government authority, which aligns with support from gun-rights advocates. At the same time, the repeal of extreme risk protection orders would likely draw opposition from gun violence prevention, public safety, and domestic violence prevention stakeholders who view ERPOs as an important intervention tool.
The main point of contention is the repeal of extreme risk protection orders, with supporters likely arguing that ERPOs infringe on due process and Second Amendment rights, while opponents likely argue that they help prevent suicide, homicide, and other firearm-related harm. Secondary disputes involve the bill’s removal of ERPO references from training, education, notification, and reporting systems, which critics may see as weakening public safety infrastructure. The bill also touches concealed carry eligibility and protection-order documentation, creating broader concern among law enforcement, courts, landlords, and victim-survivor advocates about the downstream effects of eliminating ERPO-related procedures.