Arizona Red Flag Law: Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Red Flag Laws / Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Arizona

The Headline

Arizona has not enacted a red-flag law. No Arizona statute authorizes courts to issue an "extreme risk protection order" (ERPO), a "gun violence restraining order" (GVRO), or a similarly named civil order whose purpose is to temporarily strip a person of firearms based on a finding of risk to self or others. Petitioning frameworks of that kind exist in other states; Arizona is not one of them. The only Arizona civil order that produces a firearm-disability effect is an order of protection issued under Arizona's domestic-violence and related civil-procedure statutes (A.R.S. 13-3601 et seq.), which interacts with federal 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) rather than with a state ERPO regime.

What Arizona Does and Does Not Have

Arizona's firearm-possession disabilities are codified in A.R.S. 13-3101(A)(7), the "prohibited possessor" definition. The seven categories in A.R.S. 13-3101(A)(7) include a person found to constitute a danger to self or others, or to have a persistent, acute, or grave disability, by court order under A.R.S. 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored under A.R.S. 13-925. This is a mental-health-commitment-based disability, not an ERPO. It does not allow a family member, law-enforcement officer, or other petitioner to seek a stand-alone firearm-removal order outside of the civil commitment, criminal conviction, or protective-order frameworks already on the books.

Arizona also recognizes that a person under any order of protection issued under A.R.S. 13-3602 (domestic violence) or A.R.S. 12-1809 (injunction against harassment) may, depending on the order's specific terms and on whether the federal 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) prohibitor attaches, be barred from possessing a firearm during the order's effective period. That federal disability is independent of any Arizona-state ERPO scheme.

No State ERPO Petition Mechanism

Because Arizona has not enacted an ERPO statute, the procedural elements that distinguish red-flag regimes elsewhere are absent in Arizona:

• There is no statutory petitioner class authorized to file a stand-alone firearm-removal petition (no family-member, household-member, or law-enforcement petitioner pathway exists outside the protective-order and civil-commitment statutes).
• There is no ex parte temporary-order mechanism keyed to a risk finding (separate from the civil-commitment process under A.R.S. 36-520 et seq. and the protective-order process under A.R.S. 13-3602 and A.R.S. 12-1809).
• There is no separate hearing on a firearm-only order; the firearm-possession consequences attach as derivative effects of orders issued under other Title 13 and Title 36 procedures.
• There is no Arizona-specific firearm-surrender procedure tied to a risk-based finding outside the protective-order and commitment context.

No State Criminal Penalty for "Violating an ERPO"

Because there is no ERPO statute, Arizona has no parallel state criminal penalty for violating an ERPO. Violation of an order of protection issued under A.R.S. 13-3602 is its own offense under A.R.S. 13-2810 (interfering with judicial proceedings) and A.R.S. 13-2810-adjacent provisions; that is a protective-order penalty, not a red-flag penalty. A person found to possess a firearm while subject to a qualifying domestic-violence restraining order can face federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8); that, again, is a federal disability rather than a state ERPO consequence.

Legislative History and Outlook

Arizona's legislature has considered red-flag proposals in recent sessions, but no such bill has been enacted. The state's policy posture has been to address risk-based disarmament through (a) civil commitment under Title 36, (b) protective orders under Title 13 Chapter 36, and (c) prohibited-possessor classifications under A.R.S. 13-3101(A)(7), rather than through a free-standing ERPO statute. Operators tracking pending legislation should consult the Arizona Legislature's bill tracker at azleg.gov for any active red-flag or ERPO bill in the current session.

Practical Implications for Concealed-Carry Permit Holders

• An A.R.S. 13-3112 concealed weapons permit is not subject to any Arizona ERPO suspension procedure because none exists.
• A permit holder served with an order of protection under A.R.S. 13-3602 should consult counsel immediately; the order itself, plus the federal 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) overlay, can produce a firearm-possession disability and require surrender even though Arizona has no separate ERPO mechanism.
• A permit holder who is the subject of a civil-commitment proceeding under A.R.S. 36-540 should likewise consult counsel; an adverse finding triggers the A.R.S. 13-3101(A)(7) prohibitor and the federal 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) prohibitor.
• Restoration of firearm rights after a mental-health-based disability requires the procedure in A.R.S. 13-925 (petition to the superior court; clear-and-convincing evidence the petitioner is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that restoration is not contrary to the public interest).

This summary is informational and is not legal advice. Consult an Arizona attorney for fact-specific questions about protective orders, civil commitment, or firearm-disability restoration. Always verify current statutes at azleg.gov.

<!-- 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.