DENVER — A bill that passed the Colorado Senate on a near-party-line vote would allow hospitals, schools, and behavioral health facilities to petition courts for the temporary seizure of an individual’s firearms, expanding the state’s red flag law beyond individual petitioners to institutions for the first time in the nation.
SB26-004, sponsored by Sen. Tom Sullivan (D-Centennial) and Sen. Julie Gonzales (D-Denver), passed the Senate 20-13 on February 3 and now heads to the House State Affairs Committee, where a hearing is scheduled for March 2. Democrats hold a 43-22 majority in the House, and passage is expected.
If enacted, Colorado would become the first state to explicitly authorize institutional petitioners, allowing entities such as hospital systems, school districts, and behavioral health treatment centers to file Extreme Risk Protection Orders as organizations rather than through individual employees, according to a state-by-state comparison by the Giffords Law Center, an organization that describes itself as dedicated to “saving lives from gun violence.”
Under Colorado’s current ERPO law, petitions to temporarily remove firearms can be filed by law enforcement officers, family or household members, licensed medical and mental health providers, licensed educators, and district attorneys. The original law was signed in April 2019 and expanded in 2023 to add individual professionals.
SB26-004 adds two new categories of petitioners. The first is behavioral health co-responders, the specialists who respond to crisis calls alongside law enforcement or other first responders. Currently, co-responders who encounter dangerous situations must work through their law enforcement partners to file petitions. The bill would allow them to petition judges directly, according to the Colorado Sun.
The second category is institutional petitioners: healthcare facilities, behavioral health treatment facilities, K-12 schools, and institutions of higher education. Under this provision, the institution’s name would appear on the petition rather than an individual doctor’s or teacher’s name. The bill still requires an individual’s signature on the ERPO form even when an institution files, according to Chalkbeat Colorado.
The bill also enables firearm seizure if a child in the household is determined to pose a danger to themselves or others.
Sen. Sullivan, whose son Alex was among the 12 people murdered in the Aurora theater massacre on July 20, 2012, has championed ERPO legislation since winning office in 2018. He sponsored the original 2019 law and the 2023 expansion.
“Gun deaths are happening by suicides and domestic violence, which is a number one thing that we can do with an extreme risk protection order, temporarily remove a firearm from someone who’s going to be a danger,” Sen. Sullivan told the Colorado Sun.
Sen. Sullivan argued that institutional petitions provide “a layer of protection for the individuals who work directly with a respondent.” He noted that teachers, doctors, and therapists “were not trained to fill out the forms to file this type of paperwork,” according to Chalkbeat Colorado.
Sen. Gonzales cited statistics suggesting that “for every 20 ERPOs that are filed, a life is saved,” according to the Canon City Daily Record.
Evie Hudak, representing the Colorado PTA, testified that institutions allow educators to “elevate concerns to their employers” and that teachers recognize potential warning signs but need institutional support to navigate the ERPO process, according to Chalkbeat Colorado.
Democratic lawmakers emphasized that individuals subject to ERPOs retain the right to counsel and the right to appeal, and that all petitions still require judicial review.
The bill drew sharp opposition from Republican lawmakers during a Senate floor debate that followed a four-hour committee hearing.
Sen. Lynda Zamora Wilson (R-Colorado Springs), a former Pentagon analyst, argued the bill violates the Second, Sixth, and 14th Amendments. “This is not due process, this is presumption of guilt,” Sen. Wilson told the Senate.
Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer (R-Brighton) challenged the bill’s procedural framework directly: “There is an issue with due process. Where is the due process?” according to the Canon City Daily Record.
Sen. Rod Pelton (R-Cheyenne Wells) objected to the possibility of anonymous complaints. “That’s not right. That’s not America,” according to the Canon City Daily Record.
Gun rights organizations raised concerns about institutional accountability. Ian Escalante, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (an organization that describes itself as “Colorado’s largest state-based gun lobby”), argued that institutional petitioners “absolve responsibility from the individual,” according to Denver7. Critics noted that while false petitions by individuals carry a class 3 misdemeanor penalty, SB26-004 does not include specific provisions for false claims filed by institutions.
Escalante also warned of a chilling effect on mental health treatment. “Gun owners feel very uncomfortable about speaking freely in therapy,” he told Denver7. Research from New York indicates about 9% of gun owners said they would be less likely to seek mental health treatment because of red flag laws, and about 23% said they would be less willing to report mental health symptoms that concerned them.
Ray Elliott of the Colorado State Shooting Association (an organization that describes itself as “the official state association of the National Rifle Association”) said the expansion “invites abuse, inefficiency, and potential violations of due process,” according to Colorado Politics. Vice President Teddy Collins added: “We are talking about (entities that are) further removed: institutions with ideological positions and individuals who hold personal and political anti-gun bias.”
Michelle Grey, a retired teacher, testified against the bill. “Students only come forward when they believe their teachers are there to help them, not to report them or to trigger legal action,” according to Colorado Politics.
The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action urged senators to oppose the bill entirely rather than seek amendments, stating, “These expansions invite abuse of the system and threaten due process protections for lawful firearm owners,” according to the NRA-ILA.
Colorado’s red flag law allows petitioners to ask a court to temporarily prevent a person from purchasing or possessing firearms. A temporary order can be issued after an ex parte hearing, meaning the respondent is not present or notified, on the day the petition is filed or the next court day. The burden of proof for a temporary order is a preponderance of the evidence.
A continuing order requires an adversarial hearing within 14 days, at which the respondent can be present, challenge evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. The burden of proof rises to clear and convincing evidence for a continuing order, which can last up to one year.
To terminate an order early, the respondent bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that they no longer pose a significant risk, according to the bill text.
From 2020 through 2024, Colorado courts received 692 ERPO petitions, granted 478 temporary orders, and issued 371 continuing orders, according to the Colorado Sun. In 2024 alone, 164 petitions were filed with an 80.27% grant rate, according to The Center Square.
A peer-reviewed study published in PMC examining 353 petitions from 2020 to 2022 found that law enforcement filed 54.6% of petitions and received temporary orders at a rate of 94.3%, compared to 35.0% for non-law-enforcement petitioners. Approximately 37.7% of petitions mentioned mental health issues.
When the original ERPO law was enacted in 2019, 37 of Colorado’s 64 counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, with counties including Weld, El Paso, and Fremont publicly stating they would not enforce the legislation.
Research shows that sanctuary county declarations had measurable effects. Judges in sanctuary counties approved 48% of petitions compared to 77% in all other counties, according to a PMC study on sanctuary status and ERPOs.
SB26-004 is one of several firearms bills moving through the legislature this session. SB26-043 would regulate gun barrel sales by requiring in-person transactions and five-year record retention. A separate bill would restrict 3D-printed firearms and the possession of digital instructions to manufacture firearms or large-capacity magazines.
Republicans are pushing back with HB26-1021, the Second Amendment Protection Act, which would repeal nearly every gun violence prevention law enacted in Colorado from 2013 to 2025, including background checks on private sales, safe storage requirements, and the existing red flag law.
Democrats have held complete control of Colorado lawmaking since 2019. In the current session, they hold near-two-thirds majorities in both chambers, with the Senate split 23-12 and the House 43-22. Sen. Nick Hinrichsen (D-Pueblo) was the only Democrat to vote against SB26-004, according to the Denver Post.
Law Week Colorado identified SB26-004 as one of at least 10 bills in the 2026 session raising constitutional, administrative, and enforcement questions and potential court fights.
Colorado ranks 41st nationally in mental health outcomes and 47th in per capita mental health spending, according to a report by Axis Integrated Mental Health. The state has the second-highest prevalence of mental illness in the nation as of 2024.
Critics argue those rankings point to a misplaced priority. Rather than expanding the mechanisms to seize firearms from people in crisis, they say, lawmakers should invest in the treatment infrastructure that might prevent crises in the first place. Opponents contend that if gun owners avoid therapy or medical care out of fear of being red-flagged, the expansion could reduce the very crisis interventions it aims to facilitate.
Supporters counter that ERPOs are not a substitute for mental health treatment but an emergency tool for preventing imminent harm. Sen. Sullivan described the bill as one element of a broader effort. “The public health crisis that is gun violence isn’t something that can be addressed in just a singular policy attempt,” he told Colorado Politics.
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have enacted ERPO laws. Five states limit petitioners to law enforcement only, while 16 states and D.C. allow both law enforcement and family or household members to petition.
A handful of states have expanded further. New York allows school administrators, healthcare practitioners, and district attorneys to file. Massachusetts and Hawaii allow certain healthcare providers and school administrators. Maryland, Michigan, and the District of Columbia include mental health providers.
Colorado’s bill goes beyond all of them. While New York and others authorize individual professionals to petition, SB26-004 would allow the institution itself to be the petitioner. Three states, Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, have moved in the opposite direction, banning or restricting ERPO legislation entirely, according to the Giffords Law Center.
No court has struck down a red flag law as of February 2026. A New York appeals court upheld that state’s ERPO law, ruling the regulation “is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation in keeping dangerous individuals from carrying guns.”
—
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is preparing to issue what legal scholars are calling the most significant separation-of-powers ruling since the steel seizure case...
DENVER — A bill introduced in the Colorado Senate on Feb. 11 would eliminate all criminal penalties for prostitution, solicitation, and patronizing between consenting...
Coloradans may vote this November on whether to add a “fundamental right to know” to the state’s constitutional Bill of Rights — a move...