OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. — A stack of stapled papers tells of the work Kristen Gumpert has done to keep her family safe.
In October, the West Michigan woman tried to file for an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) against her brother-in-law, seeking to get his guns taken away. She feared for his safety and for others.
She was denied.
"They said I couldn't file," Gumpert said. "If this law is supposed to go in and stop mass shootings and all these different things, there needs to be some changes."
Since then, Gumpert has researched Michigan's ERPO law — also referred to as a red flag law. She has read and printed out news articles on the topic, highlighting what state lawmakers have said about the legislation, hoping to hold them accountable. The work led to her stack of papers, which she held in her hands when interviewed by FOX 17.
"This is not a gun control issue of just trying to grab everybody's guns," Gumpert said. "There are certain people that should never have guns. If they are not mentally stable, they should not have guns."
In February 2024, Michigan's Extreme Risk Protection Order Act took effect, allowing courts to temporarily take away a person's firearms if they were deemed to be an immediate threat to themselves or others.
Similar legislation exists in 20 other U.S. states, though Michigan's law is "more expansive," according to the Michigan Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention (MIFIP), as healthcare providers are permitted to file for an ERPO in addition to blood-related family members, household members and law enforcement.
When Gumpert tried to file for an ERPO last fall at Ottawa County Circuit Court in Grand Haven, she was denied due to the nature of her relationship with her brother-in-law, whom she was petitioning against.
"I'm family, but I'm not considered family," she said.
Gumpert says her brother-in-law has a history of mental health struggles and has twice been charged for domestic violence.
"He threatened to kill me, threatened to chop me and my husband up into pieces," she said. "I was attacked by him. My husband was attacked."
In Gumpert's stead, her sister-in-law filed for an ERPO. While permitted to submit the paperwork, she too was denied.
Ottawa County Circuit Court told FOX 17 the petition did not prove the defendant was at risk of causing "immediate and irreparable injury" to himself or others.
"Not enough information is provided as to the time frames showing [the] respondent can reasonably be expected within the near future to intentionally or unintentionally seriously physically injure themselves or others," said a court document signed by Judge Paul Kraus.
In his denial, Judge Kraus also mentioned a Personal Protective Order (PPO) in effect against the brother-in-law, which "presumably" would prohibit the possession of guns.
"Obviously, the PPO is not working," said Gumpert, showing FOX 17 photo evidence of two shotguns in her brother-in-law's possession around the time of the petition's filing.
"I sure don't feel protected by the [ERPO] law," she said. "To me, it's a nothing law, because it's not done right."
Gumpert's case is in the minority.
During the first year of Michigan's ERPO law (Feb. 13, 2024 to Dec. 31, 2024), 391 complaints were filed and 287 ERPOs were issued, an acceptance rate of 73%, according to a study from the Michigan State Court Administrative Office.
These numbers are "in-line" with the first years of ERPO laws in other states, according to Stephen Oliphant, a researcher at MIFIP.
Read the full report on Michigan's ERPO law HERE
Oliphant also noted that, based on data from the state, no people in Michigan were charged with making false statements as part of a malicious attempt to have another person's firearms seized.
"One criticism that's out there, which is largely unfounded, is that people are making these petitions for frivolous claims or as some sort of revenge," he said. "Those cases are rare. At least in Michigan, there weren't any instances where someone was making false statements and was then charged as such."
MIFIP says that, statistically, one life is saved for every 20 ERPOs.
Gumpert believes more lives could be spared if Michigan's law were to be expanded.
"[Lawmakers] keep saying, ‘Family can do this.’ I am family and I cannot do anything," she said, looking to get in-laws included in the legislation. "There's got to be some changes. Too many shootings."
In an interview with FOX 17, Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) said the purpose of the state's law "bottom line" is to keep people safe.
"Situations like this are tragic, and they happen every day," Brinks said about Gumpert's case. "My heart goes out to her, because it sounds like she's really trying to use every tool available."
Currently, the power in the Michigan state legislature is split between Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. While GOP leadership recently introduced a bill to repeal the state's ERPO law, it is highly unlikely to pass the governor's desk. In fact, any changes to the law will likely not happen until after another election, given the gridlock.
"If there is an opportunity to take a second look at [Gumpert's concern], these are the kinds of things that I hope that we will use to inform any improvements that we would make to the legislation," Brink said.
"This is certainly input that we will take," she said.
For more information on how to file an ERPO, click here.
