State judges in New York, starting later this year, may be tasked with evaluating whether certain individuals' ability to possess or buy a firearm should be temporarily suspended to protect themselves or others.

The state Legislature approved a bill Tuesday afternoon that would allow certain people to apply for what's called an Extreme Risk Protection Order, or a temporary court decision that would block someone from owning or buying a gun.

It's been commonly referred to as the “red flag” gun bill by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other Democratic lawmakers, who renewed their push for the idea after last year's mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The bill was first introduced in 2015.

The bill, which Cuomo is expected to sign in the coming days, gained new momentum this year after Democrats took control of the state Senate from Republicans following last year's elections. Sen. Brian Kavanagh, a Democrat from Manhattan who sponsored the bill, said it will bring New York in line with other states that have implemented similar reforms, including Florida.

“What we don't have in New York is an effective means for family members and others to separate people from their guns when the presence of the gun is a substantial reason why there is such risk,” Kavanagh said.

The bill would give broad discretion to judges over those orders, which could be requested by law enforcement, a family member, or a school administrator. Those individuals would be able to file an application for such an order with the state Supreme Court in their county.

A judge would then be tasked with reviewing the application to make a decision on the individual's gun ownership. According to the bill, judges would have to consider several factors concerning that individual, including any threats of violence they've recently made against themselves or others, any pending charges against them, any drug problems, and other circumstances.

The judge, after reviewing the application and all other factors, will either approve or reject the request for a temporary order. In either case, the judge would still schedule a hearing shortly after their decision to decide if a hold should be placed on that person's ability to buy or own a gun.

The burden at the hearing would be placed on the applicant to show why the individual should not have access to a gun, according to the bill. The judge would then issue a written decision either granting or rejecting the applicant's request.

If the order is granted, the individual's guns would be taken away by law enforcement, and a notice of the decision would be sent to the state police and FBI to prevent that individual from trying to purchase a gun while the order is in place.

The bill would allow the order to be in place for up to a year, though an applicant would be allowed to request a renewal before it expires. If a person disagreed with the court's decision on the order, they would be allowed to appeal.

Republicans in the Legislature have criticized the bill over concerns that it would deny an individual's due process rights when a judge is evaluating whether to restrict that person's gun ownership. Many echoed the same concerns while explaining their votes against the bill Tuesday afternoon.

“The legislation passed today will have unintended and far-reaching consequences,” said State Sen. Pamela Helming, R-Ontario. “I believe today's actions infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Kavanagh defended the bill during his own remarks on the floor, pointing to the avenues individuals can taken to defend against a proposed extreme risk protection order, including hearings and an appeal of the judge's decision.

He said after the bill passed that he was confident the same political divide would not affect decisions by the state's judges.

“We leave a lot of decisions that are very important to the discretion of judges,” Kavanagh said. “But I believe that a judge presented with clear and convincing evidence that someone is likely to harm themselves or others will take action to separate that person from their gun.”

The bill, which will take effect six months after it's signed into law, was part of a larger package of gun control bills approved by the Legislature Tuesday, including one to ban teachers from bringing guns onto school grounds.

READ MORE: