Skip to main content
Court Reverses Red Flag Order Against Grieving Mother
NEWS
3 min read

Court Reverses Red Flag Order Against Grieving Mother

New Jersey appellate court reversed red flag order against grieving mother who made no threats after learning of son's death. Ruling highlights due process concerns as 21 states expand extreme risk protection laws.

Article Info

Red Flag Order Reversed

Court DecisionResolved
Scope
JurisdictionNew Jersey
Impactstate
Key Entities
Grieving mother who had firearms rights restoredL.M.P.
Court that reversed the red flag orderNew Jersey Appellate Court
Agency that petitioned for the orderBayonne Police Department
Legal Issues
  • Due process in extreme risk protection orders
  • Evidence standards for firearm confiscation
  • Third-party statements as basis for red flag orders
What It Means
  • Sets precedent for challenging red flag orders based on insufficient evidence
  • May influence how courts evaluate petitions based on third-party statements
  • Demonstrates importance of legal representation in red flag proceedings
  • Shows grief responses can be misinterpreted as dangerous behavior
  • Highlights need for clear evidence standards in firearm confiscation cases
Timeline
July 9, 2024Police informed couple of son's death; temporary order issued
September 2024Final hearing held on permanent order
January 2026Appellate court reversed the order

Court Reverses Red Flag Order Against Grieving Mother

New Jersey ruling highlights due process concerns in extreme risk protection orders

From The Boise Gun Club Handbook

New Jersey appeals court just tossed out a red flag order that stripped a mother's gun rights — all because her husband panicked when police told them their only son had died.

The legal question: A three-judge panel ruled that L.M.P., a Bayonne woman, posed zero demonstrated risk to anyone despite her distraught husband's comments to cops on July 9, 2024. The catch: she never said a word that night.

The husband made every concerning statement. He told officers there was a "gun upstairs," said his wife would shoot herself, and asked them to remove it because he was going to "eat the gun." His wife went into shock — which any parent would. Yet the system went after her, not him, even though he's the one who talked about suicide.

Zoom in: L.M.P. never threatened anyone. She stood there processing the fact that her kid was dead. But she still lost her rights for two months.

Two months later at the hearing, the actual evidence painted a completely different picture:

  • She'd worked the same job for over 10 years, been in her field for 25-plus years
  • She and her husband owned $60,000 worth of monthly rental income
  • The couple had been burglarized four times — one intruder caught carrying "knives, rope, duct tape" — and faced threats from former tenants with criminal records

"Whether you're dealing with immediate trauma responses to devastating news should not automatically trigger firearm prohibitions, especially when the targeted individual exhibits no threatening behavior themselves." — Appellate court reasoning

Reality check: The research backing these laws isn't convincing. RAND Corporation found only "limited" evidence that red flag orders reduce suicides and "inconclusive" evidence for preventing mass shootings or violent crime. Most studies carry "serious or critical methodological concerns."

By the numbers:

  • 21 states plus D.C. have extreme risk laws, with usage jumping 59% in 2023
  • Nearly 49,000 petitions filed nationwide since 1999, with 96% coming after Parkland
  • Only 59% of counties in red flag states had even one petition filed in 2023

Judges approve most of these petitions — which raises real questions about whether they're scrutinizing the actual evidence or rubber-stamping paperwork.

What to watch: States keep expanding who can file. Colorado's Senate Bill 4 would add behavioral health workers, schools, and hospitals to the list. Wisconsin is pushing similar legislation. Connecticut and New York saw the biggest usage spikes after lowering filing barriers — that's the pattern once the floodgates open.

The bottom line: A grieving mother lost her gun rights for two months because her husband said panicked things while in shock. The appeals court fixed it, but she never should have gone through it. This ruling may make judges think twice before approving petitions built on third-party panic instead of actual evidence from the gun owner.

Go deeper:

#
#
Join the discussion on Campfire
Was this article helpful?

Loading comments...