SB 1158 creates Missouri’s “Firearm Violence Prevention Act” and establishes a court process for issuing extreme risk protection orders, often called “red flag” orders. The bill allows a family or household member, or a law enforcement officer or agency, to petition a court for a temporary or longer-term order when there is an allegation that a person poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others if allowed to possess or acquire firearms. Temporary orders may be issued without notice in urgent circumstances, followed by a prompt hearing, and a continuing order may last up to 182 days and be renewed if the risk remains.
The bill sets out detailed procedures for filing, notice, hearings, service, evidence, termination, renewal, and enforcement. Courts must consider a range of factors, including recent threats or acts of violence, mental health issues, domestic violence history, stalking, substance abuse, prior protection orders, and recent firearm acquisition. If an order is issued, the respondent must surrender firearms and any concealed carry permit, and law enforcement may seek a search warrant if firearms are not surrendered. The bill also requires statewide reporting, standardized forms, community resource lists, and data collection by the Office of State Courts Administrator.
SB 1158 would add a new chapter of law governing extreme risk protection orders and would amend section 542.271 to expressly authorize search warrants to seize firearms from a person subject to such an order when probable cause exists. It would also require law enforcement agencies, courts, and the state courts administrator to create procedures for service, storage, return, and disposal of firearms; enter orders into state and federal databases; revoke concealed carry permits when applicable; and track annual statistics. The bill would affect respondents subject to ERPOs, family or household members who may petition, law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcement, courts handling the petitions, and federally licensed firearms dealers or storage providers involved in surrender or transfer.
The bill’s overall policy direction is preventive and public-safety oriented, with the text emphasizing intervention when there is a significant risk of violence or self-harm involving firearms. Although no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the structure and detailed procedural safeguards suggest an attempt to balance rapid firearm removal with notice, hearings, evidence standards, and a termination process. The inclusion of mental health and domestic violence resources, as well as reporting requirements, indicates a strong focus on crisis intervention and administrative oversight.
The main points of contention likely center on firearm rights, due process, and the scope of who may initiate an order. Supporters would likely emphasize the ability to prevent suicide, domestic violence, and other firearm-related harm through temporary court intervention, while opponents may object to ex parte temporary orders, firearm surrender before a full hearing, and the use of family or household member petitions. Additional concerns may involve law enforcement workload, storage and return of firearms, database reporting, and the potential for misuse or inconsistent application of the standard for finding a “significant risk” of injury.