Brady Supports Extreme Risk Law in Washington, D.C.

Watson v. Wheeler, No. 2022-EPO-00007, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Domestic Violence Division

Date Filed: September 7, 2022

Topic: Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Washington, D.C.

Case Summary: Washington, D.C., law allows for family members, law enforcement, or mental health professionals to petition for Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) that, if granted by a court, temporarily remove firearms from individuals found to pose a heightened risk to themselves or others. The defendant in this case was the subject of an ERPO issued after law enforcement petitioned for one against him, and he challenged the law’s constitutionality under the Second Amendment. 

Brady’s Amicus Brief: Brady’s brief recognizes that Extreme Risk Protection Orders regulate conduct that has never been protected under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the rights of “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” and those that are a danger to themselves or others do not fit in that category. Additionally, D.C.’s law reflects historical regulations of firearm laws, as the founders intended to keep the public safe by restricting access to weapons from those who were deemed to be dangerous. The brief proves the necessity of ERPOs in promoting public safety through statistics that show identifiable risk factors, like past acts of domestic violence and alcohol abuse, are likely to lead to future acts of gun violence if that person has access to a firearm. Finally, Brady’s brief revisits history to confirm that the reasoning for regulating firearms during the formation of the Constitution is the same now: to protect against acts of gun violence perpetrated by dangerous individuals.