Skip to main content

Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

  • Law: Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (Public Law 117-159)
  • Passed: June 2022
  • Vote: Senate 65–33; House 234–193
  • Signed by: President Biden

The police can come to your door and take your guns. You have not been charged with a crime. You have not been convicted of anything. A family member — or a law enforcement officer — went to a court and made a claim about you, and a judge signed an order, and now officers are at your door demanding your firearms. You find out when they knock. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act handed $750 million of your tax dollars to states that build this system. Fifteen Republican senators helped pass it. The word "bipartisan" in the title is a warning, not a reassurance.

How It Passed​

Mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York in May 2022 created intense political pressure for a federal response. Within weeks, a bipartisan group of senators — led by John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) — assembled a package of gun measures broad enough to attract crossover votes. The bill passed the Senate 65–33 on June 23, 2022, and the House 234–193 the same day. President Biden signed it hours later.

The speed was deliberate. Supporters wanted to move before the political moment faded. Critics argued that the speed meant the consequences of the legislation — particularly the red flag funding mechanism and the grant compliance rules — were not fully analyzed before passage.

The bill was marketed as a modest, targeted response to mass shootings. What it actually did was create a $750 million federal incentive infrastructure to fund pre-crime gun confiscation across the country.

What It Does To You​

The headline provision that drew Republican support was expanded background checks for under-21 buyers. But the provision that matters most for gun owners is buried in the grant structure:

$750 million in federal grants to states that enact or implement "crisis intervention" programs — which the law specifically includes Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), commonly called red flag laws. The money is not a suggestion. It is a structured incentive to change state law using federal dollars.

Under a red flag order:

  • A family member, roommate, former dating partner, or law enforcement officer can petition a court to seize your legally owned firearms
  • The petition is often processed ex parte — meaning without you present, without you being notified, sometimes before you even know the proceeding exists
  • The first time many gun owners learn a red flag order has been issued against them is when law enforcement arrives at their home to collect their weapons
  • A hearing where you can contest the order may not occur until days or weeks after your guns are already gone
  • In some states, you bear the burden of proving you are not a danger — the opposite of the American legal tradition that presumes innocence

No criminal charge. No conviction. No trial. Your guns are taken because someone made a claim, a judge signed a paper, and the government showed up.

Beyond red flags, the law also:

  • Extended background check hold times for under-21 buyers from 3 to 10 business days — a window during which a young woman fleeing a dangerous situation is legally entitled to buy a firearm for self-defense but cannot because the government has not finished its paperwork
  • Expanded the domestic violence prohibition to include misdemeanor convictions against dating partners — a lifetime gun ban, in many states with no restoration pathway, for a misdemeanor, not a felony
  • Required more private gun sellers to become federally licensed dealers and run background checks — reducing the private transfer market that has existed lawfully for generations

Rights It Strips​

Second Amendment. The core of red flag law enforcement is pre-crime disarmament. There is no criminal finding. There is no evidence standard beyond a preponderance showing in an emergency proceeding the gun owner often cannot attend. A constitutional right — specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights — is suspended based on a claim, not a conviction.

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process). Property — legally owned firearms — is seized without a prior adversarial hearing. The emergency ex parte process used in most red flag proceedings is designed to exclude the affected person. You get your day in court after the confiscation. The Constitution's due process guarantee has historically required notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation of property. Red flag laws reverse that sequence.

Tenth Amendment. The $750 million grant mechanism is a federal thumb on the scale of state law. States that do not pass red flag laws do not get the money. States that do get hundreds of millions. This is not technical assistance — it is the federal government using the power of the purse to reshape state firearms law without the political accountability of a direct federal mandate.

Documented Abuses / Documented Harms​

The DOJ's own grant administration became a documented abuse case. Senators Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Representative Alex Mooney (R-WV) sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland documenting that the DOJ gave BSCA grant money to states that did not meet the due process criteria Congress required as a condition of the grants. The law contained safeguards. The DOJ ignored them and wrote the checks anyway.

Even more troubling: states without red flag laws — including Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Minnesota, and West Virginia — received federal funding to create them. Federal money was being used not to strengthen existing programs but to pressure non-participating states into building the infrastructure from scratch. The law Congress passed was being used to expand the red flag map beyond what the legislative text required.

The structural problem with red flag orders shows up in how they are executed in practice:

  • Gun owners subjected to emergency ex parte orders have been killed during seizure attempts — law enforcement showing up unannounced, in the early morning, to collect weapons from a person who does not know the proceeding occurred and does not understand why officers are at their door
  • People have had orders issued against them based on statements made in therapy, during medical evaluations, or in private communications — statements made in contexts where the person had every reason to believe they were confidential
  • False petitions by estranged family members in custody disputes and domestic conflicts have been used as tactical legal weapons — with the gun owner losing their firearms before any court has evaluated the accuser's credibility
  • Reinstatement after a successful challenge is slow, bureaucratically complex, and not guaranteed in all jurisdictions

Who Pushed This​

John Cornyn (R-TX) was the lead Republican architect of the bill and negotiated its terms directly with Democrats. His participation gave the legislation the bipartisan cover it needed to pass.

Chris Murphy (D-CT) has been the Senate's most aggressive gun control advocate for years and drove the Democratic side of the negotiation.

The gun control advocacy industry — Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, Moms Demand Action — provided public pressure, political cover, and direct lobbying support during the post-Uvalde window.

Insurance companies and mental health provider associations backed provisions that expanded their data access and reduced their liability exposure.

The Republican senators who crossed over were not ambushed. They made a choice. Their names are on the vote.

Key Votes​

Senate: 65–33. Fifteen Republican senators voted YES. The confirmed Republican yes votes include:

  • John Cornyn (TX)
  • Susan Collins (ME)
  • Lisa Murkowski (AK)
  • Rob Portman (OH)
  • John Thune (SD)
  • Mitt Romney (UT)
  • Thom Tillis (NC)
  • Roy Blunt (MO)
  • Shelley Moore Capito (WV)
  • Lindsey Graham (SC)
  • Richard Burr (NC)
  • Bill Cassidy (LA)
  • Pat Toomey (PA)
  • Todd Young (IN)
  • Joni Ernst (IA)

House: 234–193. A smaller number of Republicans crossed over in the House. Every YES vote — Republican or Democrat — voted to fund pre-crime gun confiscation infrastructure with your tax dollars.

Why This Matters for We The Citizens​

The BSCA is not primarily a background check bill. It is a federally funded infrastructure project for pre-crime disarmament. The $750 million in grants does not disappear when the original appropriation is spent — it builds state agencies, trains officers, establishes court procedures, and creates red flag systems that persist indefinitely once established.

The documented DOJ violations — funding states that did not meet statutory due process requirements, funding states without red flag laws to create them — demonstrate that the law's text was treated as a floor, not a ceiling. The executive branch pushed the grant program further and faster than Congress authorized.

A politician who voted YES voted to fund this system with your money. Fifteen Republican senators voted YES. Every single one of them can be asked a direct question: do you believe the government should be able to seize a citizen's firearms before that citizen has been charged with any crime? Their 2022 vote already answered.

See also: Bad Laws Overview

Last updated on