What states are actually expanding ERPO right now and what's getting challenged?

Question

**This is why** we need to track these bills in real time. Colorado just passed an expansion that lowers the burden of proof on ex parte orders—meaning a judge can strip your guns before you even get a hearing. Oregon's pushing similar language. Neither state is waiting for the courts to catch up.

On the litigation side: **don't be fooled** by the Bruen window closing. Cases are moving through appellate courts right now testing whether ERPOs survive heightened scrutiny. Washington has *Essig v. Ferguson* advancing; New York faces challenges to its expanded law under *Heller*. The outcomes here will either validate these statutes or crater them—there's no middle ground.

The real play is in the state legislatures, though. Illinois, Nevada, and Connecticut all have ERPO expansions in draft form for 2026 sessions. They're embedding lower thresholds, adding more trigger categories, shortening notice periods. The courts *might* catch up in 2027 or 2028. By then the infrastructure will be built.

If your state is one of these, call your senator *now*—don't wait for the bill drop. The infrastructure matters more than the text at this stage. What state are you in? That determines which fights are actually live for you.

David Walsh · Accepted Answer

The ERPO landscape is moving faster than the case law can track, but let's separate what's actually live from what's in draft status.

**Enacted and being litigated:**
Colorado's 2019 ERPO *is* the subject of ongoing challenges—but the expansion you're referencing (HB 24-1032, effective Jan 2025) specifically lowered the standard for ex parte orders from "clear and convincing" to "preponderance of the evidence." That's a material shift in the burden. Washington's *Essig v. Ferguson* (Western District, 9th Circuit track) is testing whether the statute as written survives intermediate scrutiny post-*Bruen*—that's live and moving. New York's expansion under the Domestic Violence Incident Information Act faces *Antonyuk*-adjacent challenges, though the NYSRPA litigation there is distinct from the ERPO track.

**Draft/proposed stage:**
Illinois, Nevada, and Connecticut all have 2026 draft proposals circulating, but they haven't cleared committees yet. That's not the same urgency as enacted law. Worth monitoring, yes; worth treating as settled infrastructure, no.

**The corrected framing:** You don't need to call now on bills that haven't been introduced. You *do* need to monitor your state's *current* ERPO statute—the text that's in effect—because that's what's being challenged in court *right now*. The 2026 drafts matter only if your legislators are already signaling movement.

What state are you in? That determines whether you're tracking a live case or a prospective bill.

Not legal advice—consult your state bar on any specific statute.

James Whitfield · Answer

@ctpistol is right on the procedural map, but the constitutional question underneath is sharper than "will courts catch up." They already have the framework.

Post-*Bruen*, the burden is on the state to justify the restriction through text, history, and tradition—not on us to prove it's unconstitutional. The preponderance standard Colorado adopted in HB 24-1032 makes that worse, not just procedurally but constitutionally. You're deprivcing someone of a fundamental right recognized in *Heller* and *McDonald* based on a lower evidentiary bar. That's backwards.

The *Essig* track in the 9th is testing whether ERPOs themselves—the statute's core mechanism—survive intermediate scrutiny. But *Bruen* didn't leave room for intermediate scrutiny on Second Amendment claims. It's strict scrutiny or nothing. That's the distinction. Washington's statute either fits the historical tradition of temporary firearm seizure (it doesn't, cleanly) or it fails.

New York's *Antonyuk* line is instructive: the court already flagged that the state hadn't met its burden to show ERPO provisions aligned with historical practice. That logic doesn't expire because more states copy the model.

The real fight isn't whether legislatures move faster than courts—it's whether courts actually apply *Bruen*'s framework instead of retreating to intermediate scrutiny. Colorado, Washington, New York: all three are testing that right now.

What's the actual holding in *Essig* so far?

Victor Malone · Answer

@ctpistol's got the procedural lay right—Colorado, Washington, New York are live, the 2026 drafts aren't law yet. Fair. But the political read here matters more than the timeline.

Why? Because legislatures *know* courts are moving slow. That's the feature, not a bug. Colorado didn't lower that standard by accident. They did it knowing ERPO cases would take 3–4 years to reach appellate review—by then the infrastructure's normalized, other states copy it, and courts face a wave instead of a single challenge. That's political calculation, not legislative accident.

@constitutional's right that *Bruen* set a framework, but courts aren't enforcing it uniformly yet. The 9th might gut *Essig* on text-history grounds. The 2nd Circuit might water it down. Meanwhile, Illinois is watching both and drafting accordingly—embedding whatever language survives the first round. That's not paranoia, that's how legislative strategy works.

The call-your-senator thing isn't about phantom bills. It's about your *current* legislature seeing which way the wind's blowing on these cases and deciding to move *their* ERPO expansion before the appellate courts finish talking. Nevada's watching Arizona. Connecticut's watching New York. They're not waiting for a final constitutional answer—they're moving to beat it.

So yeah, track what's enacted. But also watch your state's committee calendars starting January. That's where they make the move.