Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of temporarily banning firearm possession for those deemed by a judge to be a danger to others, House Democrats are hoping to expand on the Rahimi decision by adopting a federal "red flag" law. 

Like the Senate's recent attempt to pass a ban on bump stocks through unanimous consent, however, the push for an Extreme Risk Protection Order isn't just (or even primarily) about policy. It's about politics.

Reps. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) and Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) announced in a press release that they are introducing a discharge petition on the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Act.

• The maneuver would force a House vote after a certain time period if 218 lawmakers sign onto the petition, with or without the assent of GOP leadership.
• The bill would allow federal courts to issue orders removing guns from those deemed a risk to themselves or others and create a Justice Department grant program expanding such orders at the state level.

What they're saying: "Red flag laws should not be controversial ... new avenues for intervention, new resources for training, and better standards for data would help more communities and save more lives," Carbajal said in a statement.

The "red flag" bill has already passed the House once before, but that was back in 2022 when Democrats had a slim majority. Now it's the Republicans who have a narrow edge, and Democrats are counting on the same wall of opposition that led to the Senate's bump stock ban failing to receive unanimous consent so they can paint conservatives as caring more about guns than human lives. 

The problem for Carbajal, McBath, and their colleagues, is that "red flag" laws are controversial, and there are plenty of flaws in the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Act. 

First, the bill allows for firearms to be taken after an ex parte hearing where the subject of the petition has no voice or opportunity to counter the claims of the petitioner. 

The legislation also doesn't guarantee that those who can't afford an attorney will have counsel when they do get their day in court. Instead, the bill merely states that  "the court, at the request of the respondent, shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that the respondent is represented by an attorney with respect to the petition." In other words, if the court says it is not practical to appoint an attorney to represent the respondent, they're simply on their own. 

While the "long term" Extreme Risk Protection Order proposed by Democrats lasts for 180 days, it can be renewed without limit during additional hearings, which raises the question of just how temporary these orders would really be. 

And like almost every other "red flag" law in existence, there's no mental health component either before or after a petition is granted; no mental health evaluation beforehand, and no treatment provided if a judge deems someone to be a danger to themselves or others. Once the petition is in effect and the U.S. Marshals have seized whatever lawfully-owned firearms the respondent owns (or the respondent transfers them to an FFL to be sold), the courts consider the supposed dangerousness of the individual in question to be resolved. 

There are plenty of reasons to be opposed to the federal "red flag" bill, but Democrats will try to frame Republican opposition along the lines of "conservatives want to arm dangerous people". The GOP needs to point out the lack of due process protections and access to mental health, but they also need to hammer home the fact that someone who hasn't been charged or even accused of a crime, nor adjudicated as mentally ill, could still be stripped of a fundamental civil right on nothing more than a judge's say-so. 

I doubt there are enough votes to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote, but actually passing the "red flag" bill is far less important to Democrats than trying to use it as a campaign issue between now and November.