To amend sections 109.57, 2923.125, 2923.128, 2923.1213, and 2923.13 and to enact sections 2923.26, 2923.27, 2923.28, 2923.29, 2923.30, and 2923.99 of the Revised Code to enact the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act to allow certain persons to obtain a court order that temporarily restricts a person's access to firearms under specified circumstances.
HB46 would create Ohio’s Extreme Risk Protection Order Act. The bill authorizes certain petitioners—specifically family or household members, law enforcement officers, and law enforcement agencies—to ask a court of common pleas for an order temporarily restricting a person’s access to firearms when that person is alleged to pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others. The bill also allows an ex parte emergency order, issued without prior notice to the respondent, when the court finds reasonable cause to believe the danger is imminent. Final orders would generally last 180 days and could be renewed, while respondents would have a process to seek termination of the order every 180-day period.
The bill also requires surrender of firearms and any concealed handgun license when an extreme risk protection order or ex parte order is issued. It directs courts and law enforcement to enter these orders into relevant state and federal systems, including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and requires sheriffs to revoke concealed handgun licenses when an order is issued. In addition, the bill creates criminal penalties for violating an extreme risk protection order, including offenses for knowingly possessing firearms while under the order and for knowingly filing false petitions or applications.
Beyond the new ERPO provisions, HB46 amends existing concealed carry and firearms disability statutes to integrate the new order into Ohio law. It updates sections governing concealed handgun licenses, suspension and revocation procedures, and weapons under disability so that a person subject to an extreme risk protection order is prohibited from acquiring, possessing, carrying, or using firearms. The bill also requires the attorney general and superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation to prepare forms, instructions, brochures, and court staff materials for the ERPO process, including translated materials for significant non-English-speaking populations.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill itself is strongly preventive and public-safety oriented, with the legislation framed as a tool to reduce firearm-related harm in crisis situations. Because the bill was only introduced and there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the supplied materials. The structure of the proposal, however, suggests a policy approach focused on rapid judicial intervention, firearm removal, and procedural safeguards such as hearings, notice, and a termination process.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance between gun violence prevention and due process or Second Amendment concerns. The bill permits ex parte orders based on a showing of reasonable cause, allows firearm surrender before a full hearing in emergency cases, and imposes criminal penalties for violations and false filings. Supporters would likely emphasize suicide prevention, domestic violence prevention, and crisis intervention, while opponents may focus on the risk of misuse, the standard of proof, and the temporary deprivation of firearm rights before a full adversarial hearing.
HB46 would add a new chapter of law establishing extreme risk protection orders and would amend existing firearms licensing and disability statutes to make those orders enforceable within Ohio’s concealed carry and firearm prohibition framework. It would require sheriffs, courts, and law enforcement agencies to process firearm surrender, license revocation, recordkeeping, and database reporting, and it would create new criminal and civil penalties related to violations and false filings. The bill would also affect petitioners, respondents, sheriffs, courts of common pleas, municipal and county courts, and agencies that maintain criminal history and firearm eligibility records.
The bill’s text reflects a clear pro-public-safety and gun-violence-prevention posture, aiming to give courts a mechanism to intervene when a person is believed to pose a danger with firearms. No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the introduced proposal itself. Based on the bill’s design, supporters would likely view it as a crisis-response and harm-prevention measure, while critics would likely view it as a significant expansion of firearm restrictions.
The most likely areas of disagreement are the scope of who may petition, the use of ex parte orders, the evidentiary standard for issuing an order, and the mandatory surrender of firearms before a full hearing in emergency cases. Opponents may argue that the bill risks erroneous deprivation of gun rights and could be subject to abuse through false or exaggerated allegations, especially given the criminal penalties for false petitions. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill includes procedural safeguards—notice, hearings, renewal limits, termination hearings, and judicial findings—and is necessary to prevent imminent harm, including suicide and violence.