WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 89

An Act relating to gun violence protective orders; relating to the crime of violating a protective order; relating to a central registry for protective orders; relating to the powers of district judges and magistrates; amending Rules 4 and 65, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 9, Alaska Rules of Administration; and providing for an effective date.

34th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Andrew Gray and 3 co-sponsors

Alaska bill establishes gun violence protective orders allowing judges to temporarily restrict firearm access for individuals deemed high-risk, creating new civil process and central registry system.

(H) Minutes (HSTA)
#courtrules #courts #crimes #criminalprocedure #injunctions #judges #lawenforcement #legislature #mentalhealth #publicsafety #weapons
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 89

Legislative bill overview

HB 89 establishes a gun violence protective order (GVPO) system in Alaska that allows district judges and magistrates to issue orders restricting firearm access for individuals deemed to pose a significant risk of harm. The bill creates a central registry for these orders and defines the crime of violating such protective orders, amending civil procedure rules to establish the legal framework for obtaining and enforcing them.

Why is this important

GVPOs, sometimes called "extreme risk protection orders," are a policy mechanism designed to temporarily remove firearm access from individuals in crisis—such as those expressing suicidal ideation or making threats—before violence occurs. Alaska would join roughly 25 other states that have adopted similar laws, making this a significant shift in how the state approaches firearm regulation and mental health intervention.

Potential points of contention

  • Second Amendment concerns: Opponents argue that removing firearms without criminal conviction raises constitutional questions about due process and the right to bear arms, particularly regarding the standard of evidence required and appeal rights.
  • Definition of "significant risk": The threshold for what constitutes sufficient danger to justify an order may be contentious—critics worry it could be too subjective or broad, while supporters may argue clearer standards are needed.
  • Implementation and enforcement costs: Creating a central registry system, training judicial officers, and enforcing violations requires significant state resources and ongoing infrastructure investment.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.