Ohio Red Flag / Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Ohio does NOT have an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) or "red flag" law. Multiple bills have been introduced in successive General Assembly sessions - including HB 60 ("Safer Ohio") and HB 354 - and each has stalled. There is no Ohio Revised Code chapter that lets a family member, household member, or law enforcement officer petition a civil court to temporarily remove firearms from a person believed to be a danger to themselves or others, the way Florida, California, Indiana, Michigan, and 17 other states do.

That does not mean Ohio has no involuntary-disarmament tool. The available tools are narrower, slower, and tied to specific predicates. Ohio's closest analogs are (1) the "weapons under disability" prohibition at Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13, which attaches automatically to several categories of person including those committed for mental illness, and (2) civil protection orders under § 3113.31 (domestic violence), § 2151.34 (juvenile / minor cases), § 2903.213 / § 2903.214 (menacing-by-stalking), and § 2919.26 (criminal TPOs), which produce ERPO-like firearm consequences when their predicates are satisfied. Neither is a true ERPO. § 2923.13 attaches as a consequence of a separate adjudication; § 3113.31 requires a domestic relationship and an act of domestic violence, not generalized dangerousness.

One Ohio statute uses the words "evidence of imminent danger" - § 2923.1213, the temporary-emergency CHL provision. That section is not a red-flag statute. It runs in the opposite direction: it lets a person at imminent risk of a criminal attack obtain a CHL on an expedited, 90-day basis. Do not confuse § 2923.1213 with an ERPO; it arms the at-risk person rather than disarming a dangerous one.

Why this matters for Ohio CHL holders and constitutional carriers

Since June 13, 2022, Ohio has been a permitless-carry state for qualifying adults age 21+ (Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.111). The CHL under § 2923.125 remains useful for reciprocity, NICS-bypass at purchase, and the licensee carve-outs in § 2923.125 and § 2923.126. None of that immunizes a CHL holder - or a permitless carrier - from § 2923.13 status or federal § 922(g) status.

The moment a person falls within § 2923.13(A): (1) firearm acquisition, possession, carry, or use becomes a third-degree felony under § 2923.13(B); (2) the CHL is subject to suspension or revocation under § 2923.128; and (3) any new application will be denied because § 2923.125(D)(1) cross-references the same § 2923.13 disqualifiers. There is no Ohio analog to a "red flag adjudication" that triggers § 2923.13 on its own - disability flows through the predicates the statute already lists.

Pathway 1: "Weapons under disability" by mental-incompetency adjudication or commitment (§ 2923.13(A)(5))

Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 is Ohio's prohibited-person statute. The disability attaches automatically on the predicate event - there is no separate "firearm adjudication." Five categories are covered: § 2923.13(A)(1) fugitives; § 2923.13(A)(2) persons under indictment for or convicted of a felony offense of violence; § 2923.13(A)(3) persons under indictment for or convicted of a felony drug offense; § 2923.13(A)(4) persons with drug dependency, in danger of drug dependence, or with chronic alcoholism; and § 2923.13(A)(5) persons "under adjudication of mental incompetence," "committed to a mental institution," "found by a court to be a person with a mental illness subject to court order," or an involuntary patient other than one held only for observation.

For ERPO-comparison purposes, § 2923.13(A)(5) is the operative subsection. "Person with a mental illness subject to court order" tracks the definitions in Ohio Rev. Code § 5122.01. A short-term § 5122.10 emergency hold without a subsequent § 5122.15 court order generally does NOT place the person within § 2923.13(A)(5) or 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). The disability attaches on a § 5122.15 commitment order, on an involuntary-patient determination beyond the observation-only carve-out, or on a guardianship-of-the-person order following a finding of mental incompetence.

Once § 2923.13(A)(5) attaches:

• State: Knowing acquisition, possession, carry, or use of any firearm or dangerous ordnance is a third-degree felony under § 2923.13(B). The disability is indefinite - § 2923.13(C) clarifies that mere completion of any underlying sentence does not, by itself, count as "relief from disability."
• Federal: The same person is also prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) as a person who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" within the meaning of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. The federal prohibition is independent of state law and is indefinite; it does not lapse when the commitment ends.

Restoration: Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.14

Ohio is one of relatively few states with a genuine state-court restoration mechanism for "weapons under disability." Under § 2923.14(A)(1), a person prohibited under § 2923.13 (subject to a narrow carve-out at § 2923.14(A)(2) for repeat firearm-specification felonies and § 2923.132 violations) may apply to the court of common pleas in the county of residence for relief from disability. The application must recite the predicate and show "facts showing the applicant to be a fit subject for relief." The county prosecutor receives a copy and may oppose. After hearing, the court may grant relief if § 2923.14(D) is satisfied: the underlying sentence has been fully discharged (or the underlying non-conviction factor no longer applies), the applicant has led a law-abiding life since discharge and is likely to continue to do so, and the applicant is not otherwise prohibited by law from acquiring firearms.

A successful § 2923.14 order, under § 2923.14(F), restores the applicant "to all civil firearm rights to the full extent enjoyed by any citizen," but only as to the predicate recited and only as to lawfully acquired firearms. The order is automatically void if the applicant reenters the § 2923.13(A) class. § 2923.14 relief lifts the state disability. It does not, by itself, lift the federal § 922(g)(4) prohibition; federal relief requires the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (NIAA) program at 34 U.S.C. § 40915. § 2923.14 relief is granted in some Ohio counties at meaningful rates and almost never in others.

What § 2923.13(A)(5) does NOT do

The mental-incompetency / commitment route is not an ERPO. It cannot be initiated against a person whose only "warning signs" are statements, social-media posts, threats to others, or stockpiling - the Chapter 5122 petitioner must show mental illness under the § 5122.01 definitions. It does not authorize a stand-alone civil search warrant for firearms. § 2923.13(B) makes possession a felony once disability has attached, but the statute does not contain an ERPO-style judicial order directing seizure. The § 5122.10 emergency hold does not, standing alone, satisfy § 2923.13(A)(5) or 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) unless followed by a § 5122.15 court order - practitioners should not assume an ER psychiatric hold equals a federal prohibition.

Pathway 2: Civil protection orders (§ 3113.31; § 2151.34; § 2903.213 / § 2903.214; § 2919.26)

Civil protection orders are Ohio's most-used tool for stripping firearms from a person who poses an articulable danger. They are not red-flag orders - each requires a specific statutory predicate - but they produce ERPO-like firearm consequences when the resulting order satisfies 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) or contains an express firearm-relinquishment term.

The four civil-protection-order routes

1. Domestic-violence civil protection order (DVCPO), Ohio Rev. Code § 3113.31. Issued by the domestic-relations division. Predicate: "domestic violence" against a "family or household member" or "person with whom the respondent is or was in a dating relationship," as defined in § 3113.31(A)(1) (attempting or recklessly causing bodily injury; threat-of-force placing in fear of imminent serious physical harm; menacing-by-stalking under § 2903.211; aggravated trespass under § 2911.211; abuse of a child; or a sexually oriented offense). § 3113.31(D)(1) authorizes a same-day ex parte order for "immediate and present danger," lasting until the full hearing scheduled within seven to ten court days. § 3113.31(E)(1) allows the court to "grant any protection order" reasonably calculated to bring about cessation of domestic violence; subsection (E)(1)(h)'s "other relief that the court considers equitable and fair" is routinely used to require firearm relinquishment. A final order is valid up to five years under § 3113.31(E)(3) and is renewable.

2. Juvenile / minor-victim civil protection order, Ohio Rev. Code § 2151.34. Issued by the juvenile division when § 3113.31 is unavailable because the relationship is not "family or household." Available relief mirrors § 3113.31(E).

3. Stalking / sexually-oriented-offense civil protection order, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2903.213 and 2903.214. § 2903.213 governs criminal-case TPOs pending prosecution; § 2903.214 governs the freestanding civil order against a respondent who has engaged in menacing by stalking under § 2903.211 or in a sexually oriented offense, irrespective of any domestic relationship. This is Ohio's closest analog to a non-domestic civil firearm-removal order.

4. Criminal-case temporary protection order, Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.26. Issued at the first appearance of a defendant charged with a domestic-violence offense, menacing by stalking, aggravated trespass, or a sexually oriented offense. Effective until disposition. May include a firearm prohibition.

State firearm consequences

Ohio's § 2923.13 does not contain a stand-alone "subject to a protection order" disability category in the (A)(1)-(A)(5) list. State-law firearm prohibition under an Ohio civil protection order therefore runs through three paths: (i) the order's own express terms requiring relinquishment under § 3113.31(E)(1)(h) "equitable and fair" relief or comparable provisions in § 2151.34 / § 2903.214 / § 2919.26; (ii) CHL ineligibility under § 2923.125(D)(1)(j) and CHL suspension under § 2923.128(A)(2), both of which expressly reach a person currently subject to a civil protection order, temporary protection order, or out-of-state protection order; and (iii) the federal prohibitor at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). A respondent who possesses a firearm in violation of an order's express relinquishment term may be held in contempt and, if the order satisfied § 922(g)(8), prosecuted federally.

Federal firearm consequences: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)

A § 3113.31, § 2151.34, § 2903.214, or § 2919.26 order also triggers federal § 922(g)(8) if it satisfies three elements: (1) it issued after a hearing of which the respondent received actual notice and at which the respondent had an opportunity to participate (an ex parte order under § 3113.31(D)(1) generally does NOT satisfy this element); (2) it restrains the respondent from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child, or restrains conduct placing them in reasonable fear of bodily injury; AND (3) it either includes a finding of credible threat OR explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The federal prohibition is independent of the state one. It was upheld against a Bruen-era Second Amendment challenge in United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024).

If the underlying conduct results in conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence under § 2919.25, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) imposes a federal lifetime prohibition that survives the protective order's expiration.

What the protection-order pathway is good for, and what it isn't

Ohio civil protection orders can produce same-day, ex parte firearm-relinquishment terms. That makes them functionally similar to an ERPO temporary order. But each route requires its statutory predicate. A neighbor, classmate, coworker, or unrelated friend who is alarmed by a person's behavior - without one of these predicates - cannot obtain an Ohio civil order that removes firearms. Generalized "danger to self," including suicide risk against the respondent's own life only, is not within these statutes. A spouse worried her husband will use a firearm to kill himself, with no act of domestic violence directed at her, has no Ohio civil-protection-order route. The available tools are voluntary surrender and Pathway 1.

What § 2923.1213 actually is (and why it is NOT a red-flag statute)

Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.1213 governs temporary emergency CHLs for persons facing imminent danger. It is the closest thing in Title XXIX to a statute using red-flag-style language, and it is regularly mistaken for an ERPO analog. It is not.

Under § 2923.1213(A)(1), "evidence of imminent danger" means either (a) a sworn statement that the person has reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack on self or family member, or (b) a written document prepared by a governmental entity or public official describing facts giving the person such reasonable cause - including a temporary protection order, civil protection order, an out-of-state order, a court report, or a law-enforcement report. § 2923.1213(B)(1) permits a person facing imminent danger to apply to the sheriff of residence for a temporary emergency CHL, on the strength of that evidence, a sworn affidavit confirming the § 2923.125(D)(1)(a)-(j) and (m)-(s) criteria, a $15 fee plus background-check costs, and fingerprints. The CHL is valid 90 days, non-renewable, and unavailable again until four years elapse. The competency-certificate (training) requirement is waived.

The point is that § 2923.1213 operates for the at-risk person, not against the dangerous person. It accelerates lawful concealed carry for the threatened individual; it does not authorize a court to disarm the person making the threat. The fact that an active CPO can serve as documentary "evidence of imminent danger" under § 2923.1213(A)(1)(b) underscores the asymmetry: the same CPO that may produce ERPO-like consequences for the respondent under federal § 922(g)(8) may, in parallel, qualify the protected petitioner for an expedited Ohio CHL under § 2923.1213.

Pathway 3: What an ERPO would do (proposed, NOT enacted)

Ohio ERPO bills - including HB 60 ("Safer Ohio") and HB 354 - track the structure used in Florida, Indiana, Michigan, and Connecticut: petitioner is a family/household member or law enforcement officer; probable cause for an ex parte order (typically 14 days); preponderance or clear-and-convincing evidence for a final order (typically up to one year, renewable); surrender of firearms and CHL suspension; right to counsel and hearing within a fixed window; criminal penalties for false swearing. None of this is current Ohio law. The bills have not advanced past committee, and Republican legislative leadership has consistently opposed ERPO frameworks on Second Amendment and procedural-due-process grounds. Treat ERPO as proposed, not enacted, when teaching an Ohio CCW class.

Reciprocity considerations: out-of-state ERPO orders

Ohio has not enacted ERPO-specific full-faith-and-credit legislation. An Ohio resident subject to an out-of-state ERPO is not automatically a "weapons under disability" person under § 2923.13 - § 2923.13(A) does not list "subject to an ERPO." The person may still be subject to CHL suspension or denial under § 2923.128(A)(2) and § 2923.125(D)(1)(j), which reach a person "currently subject to a civil protection order, a temporary protection order, or a protection order issued by a court of another state"; sheriffs and BCI in practice treat clearly-styled out-of-state ERPOs as triggering CHL ineligibility. Federal § 922(g)(8) may apply if the order's intimate-partner and procedural elements are satisfied. An out-of-state ERPO will appear on NICS, so a point-of-sale denial is likely regardless. Do not tell a client moving to Ohio with an active ERPO that "the order will not follow you."

Quick-reference table

Practical guidance for instructors and licensees

1. If a student was briefly held under § 5122.10 and released, ask whether a court ever entered a § 5122.15 commitment order. The court order, not the emergency hold, is what triggers § 2923.13(A)(5) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

2. If a student is served with a § 3113.31 ex parte CPO containing a firearm-relinquishment term, that term is enforceable from service. Counsel immediate surrender to law enforcement or transfer to a federally licensed dealer. Ohio's § 3113.31 does not prescribe a single statewide surrender timeline; the order itself controls.

3. If a client is restored under § 2923.14 from a § 2923.13(A)(5) commitment predicate, the federal § 922(g)(4) prohibition is not automatically lifted. The federal record must be updated through Ohio's NIAA relief process before NICS will return a proceed.

4. If a household member is at risk to themselves but has not committed an act of domestic violence and is not committable under § 5122.15, the available state-law tools may not reach the situation. Outside Pathway 1 and the protection-order routes, the options are voluntary surrender, voluntary commitment, and persuasion. Ohio does not provide a third option today. Effective September 17, 2026, Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.26 (Senate Bill 273, the "Keep Them Safe Act") gives that voluntary-surrender route a statutory framework in which the owner, or a person the owner authorizes, may deposit a firearm with a federally licensed firearms dealer or a law enforcement agency under a confidential application that is not a public record, with civil immunity for the accepting custodian, but it confers no authority on anyone to remove another person's firearms and so is still not an ERPO (the full framework is in STORAGE).

5. If a client was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence under § 2919.25, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) imposes a federal LIFETIME bar. There is no Ohio mechanism - including § 2923.14 - to lift § 922(g)(9). A § 2923.14 order may restore Ohio firearm rights as to that conviction, but the federal prohibition survives unless the underlying conviction is set aside.

6. Do NOT teach students that Ohio "has" a red flag law, that § 2923.1213 is one, or that the protection-order or commitment pathways equal an ERPO. They are predicate-bound tools that produce ERPO-like consequences only when the predicates are met. § 2923.1213 is a tool for the threatened person, not against the dangerous one.