Georgia Red Flag Laws

The Headline

Georgia has no Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), Risk Protection Order (RPO), or "red flag" statute. Unlike approximately 22 other states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Georgia provides no civil court mechanism for temporarily prohibiting firearm possession or compelling firearm surrender based on a finding that a person poses a risk to themselves or others. There is no GA statute that lets a family member, a co-worker, or a law enforcement officer petition a court to remove firearms from someone in crisis short of an underlying criminal charge or a full mental health commitment.

The Giffords Law Center, Everytown for Gun Safety, the University of Michigan Firearm Injury Prevention Center, and the USCCA all confirm Georgia's status as a non-adopting state. The Georgia Law Review's January 2025 student comment by Robbie Ottley, titled Georgia Red Flag Laws, surveys the gap and argues for adoption. Bills have been filed in the General Assembly. None has reached the Governor's desk.

If you are a Georgia carrier or instructor, the practical takeaway is short. The familiar prohibitors at O.C.G.A. § 16-11-129(b) (eligibility for the WCL) and the federal prohibitors at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) still apply, but no state-court order can be entered against you under a "risk" or "red flag" theory. There is no ERPO record to clear, no ERPO surrender to comply with, and no ERPO violation to defend.

What Red Flag Laws Are (General Background)

In states that have adopted them, ERPOs (also called Risk Protection Orders, Firearms Restraining Orders, Gun Violence Restraining Orders, or Lethal Violence Protective Orders depending on the state) share a common structure:

• A petitioner (usually law enforcement or a family or household member, sometimes a healthcare provider, educator, or co-worker) files a civil petition in court.
• The court can issue a temporary ex parte order, typically 7 to 21 days long, on a showing that the respondent poses a significant risk.
• A noticed hearing follows, usually within 14 days, where the court applies a "clear and convincing evidence" standard. If the standard is met, the court issues a final order, typically lasting 6 months to 1 year, renewable.
• During the order, the respondent must surrender firearms and may not purchase or possess any firearm.
• An active qualifying order also triggers federal firearm prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) or, for state-court risk orders, may be NICS-reported as a separate state prohibitor.

The federal Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-159) included grant funding to encourage states to enact or implement ERPO laws. Georgia has not used those grants to enact a state ERPO. Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA-6) sponsored the federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2022 (H.R. 2377) to create a parallel federal mechanism. That bill cleared the House Judiciary Committee but did not become law.

Georgia Legislative Status

Bills proposing a Georgia red flag statute have been filed in recent sessions. The most recent is HB 453, the "Georgia Red Flag Protective Order Act," introduced February 13, 2025 in the 2025-2026 Regular Session. As tracked by BillTrack50, HB 453 would have added a new Part 3A to Article 4, Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia, creating a petition-based risk protection order procedure modeled on other states' ERPOs. Under the bill's text, a family or household member or law enforcement officer could petition the superior court; the court could issue a temporary ex parte order pending hearing and, on clear and convincing evidence, a final order of up to 12 months requiring surrender of firearms and ammunition. HB 453 died in committee on April 2, 2026 without a floor vote.

For practical purposes, GA carriers should treat the issue as settled for the current cycle. No GA ERPO statute exists, and the most recent attempt to enact one is dead. Watch for re-introduction in future sessions, but do not plan around speculative legislation.

What This Means Practically

Because Georgia has no red flag statute:

• A concerned family member cannot petition a Georgia court to remove firearms from a relative they believe is dangerous. There is no petition form, no hearing procedure, and no order the court can enter under a "risk" theory.
• Law enforcement responding to a person in crisis cannot apply for an ERPO. Officers must rely on existing tools: arrest for a charged offense, an emergency mental health intake under Title 37 (mental health code, separate procedure), or, for domestic-violence contexts, a Family Violence Temporary Protective Order under O.C.G.A. § 19-13-1 et seq.
• A respondent who is the subject of family-violence allegations may still face firearm restrictions through a TPO that meets the federal § 922(g)(8) "qualifying protective order" definition, or through pretrial bond conditions in a criminal case. These are not red flag orders, but they can produce firearm-surrender effects in narrower domestic contexts.
• A person threatening self-harm can still be held under emergency mental-health procedures. Those procedures live in Title 37 of the O.C.G.A., outside the firearm code, and they require a clinical determination, not a risk-based petition. A formal involuntary inpatient commitment, if it occurs, triggers the federal prohibitor at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) and is reportable to NICS.

The Georgia Law Review comment by Ottley summarizes the gap this way: "While measures such as red-flag laws offer clear policy solutions to mitigate gun violence, Georgia has responded to the gun violence crisis by broadening the availability of guns in the state." Whatever one's policy view, the description of current law is accurate. Constitutional carry was enacted in 2022 (SB 319); no red flag mechanism was added alongside it.

Adjacent Mechanisms (Not Red Flag, but Related)

Several existing Georgia procedures can produce firearm-removal effects in narrow circumstances. None of them is a red flag law, and a CCW instructor should not describe them as substitutes. They are listed here so students understand the actual landscape.

Title 37 mental health commitment

O.C.G.A. Title 37, Chapter 3 governs involuntary mental health treatment in Georgia. A peace officer or designated medical professional can initiate an emergency mental health evaluation. A probate court can order extended inpatient commitment after a hearing. If a person is involuntarily committed to a mental institution, federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)) prohibits them from receiving or possessing firearms, and the commitment is NICS-reportable. This is not a tailored firearm-removal tool. It is a clinical commitment proceeding that has a collateral federal firearm consequence.

Family-violence Temporary Protective Order

O.C.G.A. § 19-13-1 et seq. governs Family Violence Protective Orders. A court may issue a TPO when family-violence is shown. A TPO with the right findings, between qualifying intimate partners, may trigger federal § 922(g)(8). Some TPOs explicitly require firearm surrender as a condition; others leave firearm possession unaddressed at the state level and rely on federal enforcement.

Pretrial bond conditions

In any pending criminal case, a Georgia judge may impose bond conditions, including a no-firearms condition. This is routine in domestic-violence and stalking cases. It is a court order in an existing case, not a red flag petition.

Federal prohibitors after a state record

Independent of any state mechanism, the federal prohibitors at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) attach automatically based on certain records. The two most likely to come up in a "red flag-adjacent" conversation are § 922(g)(4) (adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution) and § 922(g)(9) (the Lautenberg amendment, misdemeanor crime of domestic violence). For the full prohibitor list, see RESTRICTIONS.

What a Georgia Carrier Should Do

1. Treat the absence of a red flag law as a current-state fact, not a planning assumption. Future legislatures may enact one. Track HB-numbered proposals in each session if you teach this topic.
2. Do not conflate ERPOs with the family-violence TPO process. They serve different purposes and live in different chapters of the Code. A student who hears "you can take her guns" should be redirected to the actual procedure (TPO under § 19-13-1 et seq., or criminal-case bond conditions, or Title 37 commitment) that applies to their situation.
3. If you are advising someone in crisis, the operative resources are 988 (Suicide and Crisis Lifeline), local crisis intervention teams, and emergency-room mental-health screening. None of these requires a court order. They are also not "red flag" tools and should not be marketed as such.
4. If you have been served with an out-of-state ERPO and now reside in Georgia, the order's enforceability turns on full-faith-and-credit principles and the order's qualifying status under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). This is a topic for counsel; the operative federal prohibition can attach even without a Georgia equivalent statute.

Cross-References

• RESTRICTIONS: full list of state and federal prohibitors at O.C.G.A. § 16-11-129(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
• USE_OF_FORCE: Georgia self-defense framework at O.C.G.A. §§ 16-3-20 through 16-3-24.2 (intact and not affected by the absence of a red flag law).
• PERMIT_BASICS: WCL eligibility carve-outs at O.C.G.A. § 16-11-129(b).
• CASTLE_DOCTRINE: defense of habitation, vehicle, and place of business under O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.

Operative Rule

Georgia has no red flag, ERPO, or risk protection order statute. No state-court petition lets a family member, co-worker, or officer remove firearms from a person on a "risk" theory. Existing firearm prohibitors (state WCL eligibility under § 16-11-129(b), federal prohibitors under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) operate normally, and adjacent mechanisms (Title 37 commitment, family-violence TPO, bond conditions) continue to apply in their own narrower domains.

<!-- federal-context-block:added-2026-05-20 -->

Federal context

United States v. Rahimi (2024). In United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal firearm prohibition at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) for persons subject to a qualifying domestic-violence restraining order, holding the federal disability survives the historical-tradition test of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Rahimi is the controlling SCOTUS authority on the constitutionality of federal firearm disabilities tied to domestic-violence findings; it bears on any state-level red-flag / ERPO analysis to the extent those frameworks borrow federal § 922(g)(8) prohibitor mechanics.