WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 85

Criminal procedure: sentencing guidelines; guidelines for making a false statement in support of an extreme risk protection order; enact. Amends 1927 PA 175 (MCL 760.1 - 777.69) by adding sec. 15e to ch. XVII. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0083'23

2023-2024 Regular Session

Michigan bill creates sentencing guidelines for false statements made in extreme risk protection order petitions to deter system abuse and ensure judicial consistency.

referred to second reading
#civilprocedure:injunctions #criminalprocedure:sentencingguidelines #lawenforcement:lawenforcementinformationnetwork(lein) #weapons:firearms
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 85

Legislative bill overview

SB 85 establishes criminal sentencing guidelines for individuals who make false statements in support of an extreme risk protection order (also called "red flag" orders). The bill creates specific penalties within Michigan's sentencing framework for this offense, tied to companion legislation (SB 83). This amends Michigan's existing criminal code structure to address a gap in sentencing consistency for this particular false statement offense.

Why is this important

Extreme risk protection orders allow law enforcement or other petitioners to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed an immediate danger to themselves or others. False statements supporting these orders could weaponize the system to wrongfully disarm people, while also undermining legitimate public safety efforts. Establishing clear sentencing guidelines ensures consistent judicial punishment and may deter bad-faith petitions while protecting the integrity of the ERPO process.

Potential points of contention

  • Due process concerns: Critics may worry that ERPO proceedings already operate with lower evidentiary standards than criminal proceedings, and that criminalizing false statements could chill legitimate safety reports from those uncertain about evidence
  • Sentencing severity: Disagreement over whether the guidelines set appropriate penalty levels—some may view them as too lenient (inadequate deterrent) or too harsh (disproportionate for false statements)
  • Definitional clarity: Questions about what constitutes a "false statement" in practice, and whether the standards adequately distinguish between honest mistakes, omissions, and intentional deception

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

Sign in to ask a question.