Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings

Wintemute, Garen J.; Pear, Veronica A.; Schleimer, Julia P.; Pallin, Rocco; Sohl, Sydney; Kravitz‐Wirtz, Nicole; Tomsich, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.7326/m19-2162

Cited by 79 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy 2013;McGinty et al 2014) Typically, legislatures have passed ERPO laws in response to mass shootings. While a case series using California data documents that individuals threatening mass violence are respondents to these orders, (Wintemute et al 2019) both early commentary (Frattaroli et al 2015) and recent studies (Kivisto and Phalen 2018;Swanson et al 2019;Swanson et al 2017) suggest that ERPO laws are also a promising strategy for preventing suicide. We do note that these outcome studies to date reflect findings from Connecticut and Indiana, the two states with early "risk warrant" laws that predate the Consortium's recommendation and which differ in some procedural ways from that recommendation such as who can initiate the formal process (only law enforcement can request a risk warrant, although Florida, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Virginia --some of the most recent states to enact ERPO laws -also limit petitioners to law enforcement) and the court proceedings that follow.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a promising gun violence prevention strategy. ERPO laws allow specific categories of people (law enforcement in all states, family in most) to petition a court to request that an individual be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms because that individual is behaving dangerously and at risk of violence, either to themselves or others. In 2017 Washington State's ERPO law took effect. King County developed a comprehensive approach to implementing the ERPO law. The early experience of King County offers important insight into how early adopters of these laws are incorporating EPROs into their approach to gun violence prevention. Methods: We systematically reviewed, abstracted and coded data from every ERPO petition filed in King County in 2017 and 2018, and all ERPO court records associated with those petitions. We conducted descriptive analyses of the coded data. Results: Seventy-five ERPO petitions were filed in King County during the study period. Judges granted a temporary ERPO in all 75 cases; 65 (87%) of these cases resulted in a one-year ERPO. Law enforcement initiated 73 (97%) of these petitions, and family members filed the remaining two. The 75 petitions filed described respondents' risk as to "themselves only" in 30 cases (40%), to "others only" in 20 cases (27%) and "to themselves and others" in 25 cases (33%). Five cases where the threat was to "others only" met a definition of mass shooting threat. For 95% of the temporary ERPOs issued, the courts' reasoning for issuing ERPOs included either current violence or brandishing a firearm. Court records for the 75 cases detail firearms removed and/or include receipts for removed firearms in 61 cases (81%) either as part of ERPO precipitating events (n = 13, 17%) or in conjunction with ERPO service (n = 48, 64%).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ERPOs, also known as “gun violence restraining orders” or “red flag” laws, provide a means of temporarily disarming these individuals and preventing them from acquiring new firearms. More states are adopting such laws, and research in California illustrates that they can be successful in stopping mass shooters (Laqueur & Wintemute, , this issue; Wintemute et al., ). To make these laws most effective, legislators should streamline procedures for obtaining ERPOs and expand the authority of individuals who can request an order to include immediate family and household members.…”

Section: Curtailing Access To Firearms For Individuals Who Are a Dangmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy recommendations for countering mass shootings in the United States

Nagin

Koper

Lum

2020

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, there are no systematic, controlled data on the effectiveness of GVROs in preventing mass shootings. We have recently published a description of 21 California cases, based on county court records, identified as part of a larger evaluation of California's GVRO policy in which a GVRO was issued and served with the specific objective of preventing a mass shooting (G. J. Wintemute et al., ). In such cases, the subject had made a clear declaration of intent or had exhibited behavior suggesting such an intent, and there was clear evidence of current or impending access to firearms.…”

Section: Gun Violence Restraining Ordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, it should be possible to estimate how many mass shootings are potentially averted by GVROs in states where they are available and used with that intent and, at a minimum, how many GVROs do not prevent the outcome they were issued to prevent. Such work is under way in California (G. Wintemute et al., ).…”

Section: Gun Violence Restraining Ordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With GVROs (most commonly known as extreme risk protection orders), courts are allowed to have firearms removed from those they judge to be at high and imminent risk of violence and to prohibit such persons from purchasing firearms for the duration of the order. GVROs have been used in efforts to prevent mass shootings in California, apparently with positive results (G. Wintemute et al., ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying high‐risk firearm owners to prevent mass violence

Laqueur

Wintemute

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary: In this article, we detail recent efforts in California to identify and target high-risk firearm owners to help prevent firearm violence, including mass shootings.We begin by describing gun violence restraining orders, also known as extreme risk protection orders, which provide a judicial mechanism for firearm recovery and a timelimited prohibition on firearm purchases. Next, we discuss California's Armed and Prohibited Persons (APPS) database and enforcement system. APPS is used to identify newly prohibited persons among legal firearm owners and to help law enforcement recover those firearms. Finally, we highlight early research in which machine learning for rare event detection is employed to forecast individual risk using California's decades worth of firearm transaction records and other readily available administrative data.Policy Implications: The approaches described range in scale, scope, and strategy, but all three allow for targeted intervention at times of heightened risk. In so doing, they offer the potential to provide outsized benefits to efforts to prevent mass violence. K E Y W O R D SCalifornia firearm policy, extreme risk protection orders, public mass shootings, risk prediction

show abstract

Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings

Cited by 79 publications

References 9 publications

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response

Policy recommendations for countering mass shootings in the United States

Identifying high‐risk firearm owners to prevent mass violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About