Federal funding for court-ordered firearm removal in crisis situations
S. 889 — Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act of 2025 · Filed by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) · 17 cosponsors · Introduced Mar 6, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill creates a federal grant program to help states and tribes establish or expand 'extreme risk protection order' (ERPO) laws—court processes that temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed by a judge to pose a danger to themselves or others. The bill funds law enforcement training, court infrastructure, and public awareness campaigns, and amends federal law to make ERPOs a federal disqualification for firearm possession, with full faith and credit enforcement across state lines.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a grant program funding state/tribal ERPO laws and federal integration of those orders into background-check systems. The primary civic purpose is reducing firearm-related suicide and violence through court-ordered temporary removal, not restricting gun rights broadly.
What the text implies
- ERPO orders become a permanent federal disqualification for firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922, even after state/tribal order expires, unless explicitly restored by court—this creates a lasting federal record and may complicate restoration in some jurisdictions.
- States and tribes must report ERPO data to FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) within 30 days; incomplete or delayed reporting by state agencies could create gaps in enforcement, leaving some individuals undetected in background checks.
- The bill requires 25–70% of grant funds be spent on law enforcement training, but does not mandate training for judges, prosecutors, or defense counsel—potential imbalance in expertise across the ERPO process.
- Full faith and credit clause (Section 6) requires all states/tribes to enforce ERPOs issued in other jurisdictions, even if the enforcing state has not enacted its own ERPO law—this may create enforcement burdens for states that have not adopted ERPO legislation.
- Ex parte (emergency) ERPOs can be issued on probable cause before a hearing; while due process is provided post-issuance, the initial seizure of firearms occurs without the respondent's participation, raising Fourth Amendment questions in some circuits.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill expands a due-process-protected mechanism for suicide and violence prevention without criminalizing gun ownership or creating blanket bans. Citizens gain access to court-ordered firearm removal when a judge finds imminent danger, with notice, hearing rights, and a path to restoration. The federal framework ensures consistent due-process protections and interstate enforcement, reducing gaps that endanger people in crisis.
Who stands to gain
- State and local law enforcement agencies (training, personnel, equipment funding)
- State and tribal courts (infrastructure, personnel, data systems)
- Community-based organizations (subgrants for public awareness and training)
Named in the bill
U.S. Attorney General, State courts, Tribal courts, Indian tribes, Local law enforcement agencies, FBI (NICS), Community-based organizations, Domestic violence service providers, Mental health and suicide prevention advocates
Where it stands
17 cosponsors: 17 Democrats.
- Mar 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Mar 6, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
3 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $320,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 31 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.
Richard Blumenthal, the sponsor, reported $111,550 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Giffords — $130,000 on 2 filings
- Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund — $110,000 on 1 filing
- Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence — $80,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (19,482 characters) on Aug 11, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Federal funding for court-ordered firearm removal in crisis situations” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s889 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.