How is Minnesota's new red flag law being enforced?
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. — Minnesota's "red flag" gun laws went into effect on Jan. 1, and a WCCO Investigation uncovered four cases moving through the courts seeking to remove guns from people who could be a risk to themselves or others.
These legal orders are called extreme risk protection orders.
MORE: Minnesota law enforcement readies to enforce new red flag law in 2024
"The law is fairly clear as it's written in that we know what we need to prove in court to present these to the judge," Inspector Elliot Faust, with the Brooklyn Park Police Department, explained to WCCO News. "This order is a tool to try and prevent a tragedy from happening, and we do run into situations where we have information that a tragedy is on the horizon."
Brooklyn Park's police chief was the first in Hennepin County to petition the court for a protection order. In a court filing Jan. 11, investigators sought permission to retain possession of a firearm from a man who they said attempted suicide and fired gunshots in his apartment building.
"It's a multi-family housing building with 200 units," Faust added. "He's a risk to himself but he's also a risk to other people in the building when you fire a gun like that, and there are other people living there."
The three other cases were from Martin, Steele and Wright counties, with two of three petitions granted, while the third was denied.
"The real conversation law enforcement is having behind the scenes is, how does this play out in real life? In the case we dealt with, it was easy because the person was in custody and we were in possession of the weapon," Faust said. "This conversation changes when a petition like this is granted by a judge and the judge says, 'OK, law enforcement, now go get that person's guns.' That's a difficult situation for us."
That worry is shared by other law enforcement officials WCCO spoke with, in addition to concerns among other stakeholders like defense attorneys and advocates for gun rights.
"We want to make sure we put a process that is in place to handle these as the legislature intended," Crystal Police Deputy Chief Brian Hubbard told WCCO News. "Are we going to force an armed encounter with someone at their doorstep, at their residence, I order to take guns by way of a court order? While I understand it's written, certainly, is the public served by us doing that confrontation?"
Criminal defense attorney Joe Tamburino said the cases to watch will be those involving domestic disputes between married couples, those getting divorced or other familial relationships.
"The gray area is you're taking away someone's constitutional rights, their Second Amendment rights to possess a firearm, based on reasonable grounds, that a judge believes this person is a danger to himself or others," Tamburino said.
The Department of Public Safety's website says extreme risk protection orders "are a proven way to intervene before an incident of gun violence — such as a firearm suicide or mass shooting — occurs and takes more lives."
READ MORE: Gov. Walz: If new "red flag" firearm law "saves one life, then that's good enough"
There are two kinds of orders a judge can grant: A long-term order lasts up to a year and only comes after a hearing where the person in question can dispute that they're a risk. An emergency order goes into effect immediately, without a hearing, and lasts for two weeks.
Minnesota joined 20 other states and Washington, D.C, that have similar "red flag" laws.
Gun safety advocates in Minnesota had pushed for these red flag laws in Minnesota for a long time, hoping they'll make our communities safer, but the law also has critics.
"These instances further highlight our issues with this legislation," Bryan Strawser, chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said in a statement to WCCO, commenting on the first four cases. "In most situations, emergency orders are being pursued without the individuals' knowledge, denying them the chance to contest this action legally and safeguard their constitutional rights. After the removal of firearms, these individuals remain at home with access to other potentially harmful means."
"It's crucial to address this: those in need of mental health support should receive proper care from professionals, while individuals posing a real threat should be managed through existing criminal justice processes," the statement continued. "We are open to working with lawmakers to improve access to mental health care and help individuals in crisis that do not infringe on their Second Amendment rights."