1. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-38c (2013).
Google Scholar2. Cal. Penal Code §18100 et seq. (2014).
Google Scholar3. Giffords Law Center , ERPO Procedures By State, Giffords Law Center, available at <lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ERPO_Table_2-26-20.pdf.> ();

Google ScholarCampbell, S., Yablon, A., Mascia, J., Red Flag Laws: Where the Bills Stand in Each State (February 25, 2020), The Trace, available at <https://www.thetrace.org/2018/03/red-flag-laws-pending-bills-tracker-nra/> ().
Google Scholar

4. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence , It's Time to Retire the Term “Red Flag Laws” (March 26, 2019), Giffords Law Center, available at <https://giffords.org/blog/2019/03/retire-red-flag-laws/> ().
Google Scholar5. Booker, B., Rose, J., Parkland Shooting Suspect: A Story of Red Flags, Ignored (March 1, 2018), NPR, available at <https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/589502906/a-clearer-picture-of-parkland-shooting-suspect-comes-into-focus> ().
Google Scholar6. See Giffords Law Center, supra note 3.
Google Scholar7. Id.
Google Scholar8. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332-35 (1976).
Google Scholar9. See Red Flag Laws — Examining Guidelines for State Action: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong., at 3, 6 (2019) (written testimony of David B. Kopel, Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute), available at <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kopel%20Testimony1.pdf> ();

Google ScholarSullum, J. , New York's New ‘Red Flag’ Law Illustrates the Due Process Problems Posed by Gun Confiscation Orders (August 23, 2019), Reason, available at <https://reason.com/2019/08/23/new-yorks-new-red-flag-law-illustrates-the-due-process-problems-raised-by-gun-confiscation-orders/> ().
Google Scholar

10. N.M. ST. § *-*-* (Official Classification Pending) [2020 N.M. S.B. 5].
Google Scholar11. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-38c (1999).
Google Scholar12. Giffords Law Center , Extreme Risk Protection Orders, available at <https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/> ().
Google Scholar13. American Bar Association , “Domestic Violence Civil Protection Orders” (April 2016), Americanbar, available at <www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/domestic_violence1/Charts/migrated_charts/2016%20CPO%20Availability%20Chart.pdf.> ().
Google Scholar14. Conn. Gen. Stat., supra note 12.
Google Scholar15. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence , The Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019 (July 2019), CSGV, available at <https://3p2eii11tkyo44umh7qu2zpd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/H.R.1236_S.506-materials-_July-2019.pdf> ().
Google Scholar16. Cal. Penal Code § 18100 et seq.; N.Y. CLS CLPR §6340 et seq.; HI ST §134-61 et seq.
Google Scholar17. Cal. Penal Code § 18100 et seq.; HI ST §134-61 et seq.
Google Scholar18. Cal. Penal Code § 18100 et seq.; D.C. ST § 7-2510.03 et seq.; MD Code, Public Safety, §5-601et seq.
Google Scholar19. See 2019 Cal. Assemb. B.No. 61, Cal. 2019-2020 Reg. Sess., Cal. Comm. Rep., Sept. 05, 2019; 2019 N.Y.S. Bill No. 2451, N.Y. 242nd Leg. Sess., N.Y. Comm. Rep., Jan. 26, 2019.
Google Scholar20. Maryland Courts , Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Statistics, MDCourts, available at <https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/district/statistics/2018/ERPO_Q42018.pdf> ().
Google Scholar21. Frattaroli, S., Hoops, K., Irvin, N.A., “Assessment of Physician Self-Reported Knowledge and Use of Maryland's Extreme Risk Protection Order Law,” JAMA Network Open, December 20, 2019, available at <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2757878> ().
Google Scholar22. Pallin, R., Schleimer, J.P., Pear, V.A., Wintemute, G.J., “Assessment of Extreme Risk Protection Order Use in California from 2016 to 2019,” JAMA Network Open, available at <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-networkopen/fullarticle/2767259?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social_jamajno&utm_term=3432383837&utm_campaign=article_alert&linkId=91194329> ().
Google Scholar23. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).
Google Scholar24. Fallon, R.H. , “Some Confusions about Due Process, Judicial Review, and Constitutional Remedies,” Columbia Law Review 93 (1993): 309-73, at 329.
Google Scholar | Crossref25. See, e.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Fed. Deposit. Ins. Corp. v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 240 (1988).
Google Scholar26. Blocher, J., Charles, J.D., “Firearms, Extreme Risk, and Legal Design: ‘Red Flag’ Laws and Due Process,” Virginia Law Review 106 (forthcoming 2020), available at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3534630> ().
Google Scholar27. See Mathews v. Eldridge, supra note 23, at 335.
Google Scholar28. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008).
Google Scholar29. U.S. Const. amend. II.
Google Scholar30. See, e.g., Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594, 600 (1950).
Google Scholar31. Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 616 (1974).
Google Scholar32. See Giffords Law Center, supra note 2.
Google Scholar33. MD Code, Public Safety, §5-603.
Google Scholar34. See Giffords Law Center, supra note 2.
Google Scholar35. Id.
Google Scholar36. See Booker and Rose, supra note 5.
Google Scholar37. 2019 Cal. Assemb. B. No. 61, Cal. 2019-2020 Reg. Sess., Cal. Comm. Rep.: Gun violence restraining orders, 1-5, Sept. 05, 2019.
Google Scholar38. Id., at 3.
Google Scholar39. ACLU of Pennsylvania , Memorandum: OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 2227 P.N. 3344 (STEPHENS) (June 19, 2018), ACLUPA, available at <https://www.aclupa.org/sites/default/files/ACLU-PA_Memo_HB_2227_House_Judiciary_2018-06-19.pdf> (); ACLU of Rhode Island, An Analysis of 18-H 7688 and 18-S 2492, Relating to Extreme Risk Protection Orders (March 2018), RIACLU, available at <riaclu.org/images/uploads/180302_analysis_RedFlagsLegislation.pdf> ().
Google Scholar40. Initial Brief of Coral Gables Police Department, Coral Gables Police Dep't v. Tamayo, No. 18-2275, 2019 WL 2074557 at *5–9 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2019).
Google Scholar41. National Domestic Violence Hotline , Legal Information: California, WomensLaw, available at <https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/ca/restraining-orders/domestic-violence-restraining-orders/who-can-get-dvro#node-28751> ().
Google Scholar42. See State v. Poole, 228 N.C. App. 248, 248–49 (2013); Hamilton ex rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 270 P.3d 1024, 1033 (Haw. 2012).
Google Scholar43. See Cal. Comm. Rep., supra note 37.
Google Scholar44. Department of Homeland Security , If You See Something, Say Something | Media FAQs, DHS, available at <https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0401_seesay-mediafaqs.pdf> ().
Google Scholar45. See Swanson, J.W. et al., “Implementation and Effectiveness of Connecticut's Risk-Based Gun Removal Law: Does it Prevent Suicides?” Law and Contemporary Problems 80 (2017): 179-208;

Google ScholarSwanson, J.W. et al., “Criminal Justice and Suicide Outcomes with Indiana's Risk-Based Gun Seizure Law,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online (April 2019), available at <http://jaapl.org/content/early/2019/04/15/JAAPL.003835-19> ().
Google Scholar | Medline

46. See N.M. S.B. 5, supra note 10.
Google Scholar47. Id.
Google Scholar48. Id.
Google Scholar49. Id.
Google Scholar50. Id.
Google Scholar51. Id.
Google Scholar52. See Maryland Courts, supra note 20; see also Frattaroli, et al., supra note 21.
Google Scholar