Michigan AG Race: Savit vs. Lloyd on Red Flag Laws and Gun Rights

Amidst a heated political climate, Michigan Democrats are championing Eli Savit, the state’s attorney general candidate, for his endorsement of “Red Flag” and Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws. These legal measures empower civil courts to temporarily restrict firearm access for individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others.

In a recent Zoom meeting with proponents of gun control, Eli Savit expressed his backing for these regulations, stating, “I support these laws that prevent tragedies that prevent death in the first place.”

Conversely, Doug Lloyd, Savit’s Republican rival, opposes these laws. On the Michigan GOP website, Lloyd argues for their repeal, highlighting concerns over due process. He argues that such laws “can strip individuals of a fundamental constitutional right without adequate notice, meaningful opportunity to be heard, or proper safeguards.” Lloyd further stated that public safety and constitutional rights should coexist without compromise, emphasizing that laws restricting core liberties should adhere to the highest legal standards.

Michigan State Senator Stephanie Chang has voiced her support for Savit and the importance of these laws in addressing domestic violence. “ERPOs are specifically focused on removing the firearm from the situation, but we also know that having a firearm in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that the victim will die,” Chang remarked.

Adding a personal perspective to the debate, University of Michigan student Ronan McDonough, who survived the 2021 Oxford High School shooting, warns against the repeal of ERPOs. He shared his ongoing struggle with trauma, especially around fireworks, and cautioned, “Restricting someone’s ability to issue an ERPO is dangerous. When we talk about repealing ERPOs, we are placing the removal of these safeguards ahead of survivors like me and communities like mine.”

Doug Lloyd, also an advocate for “constitutional carry,” supports eliminating the need for concealed carry permits and other related firearm regulations. He argues that “responsible citizens should not be forced to navigate confusing and inconsistent permitting schemes simply to exercise a right that is already guaranteed by the Constitution.”