Implementation and perceived effectiveness of gun violence restraining orders in California: A qualitative evaluation

Abstract

Background Uptake of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), which temporarily prohibit the possession and purchase of firearms and ammunition from individuals at particularly high risk of harming themselves or others with a firearm, has been slow and heterogenous across California. Insights into the implementation process and perceived effectiveness of the law could guide implementation in California and the many states that have enacted or are considering enacting such a law. Methods We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with 27 key informants, including judges, law enforcement officers, city and district attorneys, policy experts, and firearm violence researchers. Analysis of transcripts was guided by grounded theory and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Findings The following constructs emerged within 4 CFIR domains as salient features of implementation: 1) implementation characteristics: risk of violence, cost, and adaptability; 2) outer setting: interagency coordination and local firearm ideology; 3) inner setting: readiness for implementation and law enforcement firearm culture; and 4) implementation process: planning and engaging with those involved in implementation. Key informants perceived the law to be effective, particularly for preventing firearm suicide, but agreed that more research was needed. While most indicated that the law resulted in positive outcomes, concerns about the potential for class- and race-based inequities were also raised. Conclusions Implementation of the GVRO law in California was hampered by a lack of funding to support local proactive implementation efforts. This resulted in ad hoc policies and procedures, leading to inconsistent practices and widespread confusion among those responsible for implementation. In states that have not begun implementation, we recommend dedicating funding for implementation and creating local procedures statewide prior to the law’s rollout. In California, recommendations include providing training on the GVRO law—including an explication of agency-specific roles, responsibilities, and procedures—to officers, city attorneys, and civil court judges.

Gun violence restraining orders in California, 2016–2018: case details and respondent mortality

“…Our findings regarding orders after a hearing raised another potential concern: of respondents with a hearing, only 18.3% had legal representation. Key informants previously noted that this could perpetuate class-based disparities in the legal system, 10 with wealthier respondents more often avoiding the order after a hearing than others. We do not have data on respondent income, but a slightly higher proportion of cases in which the respondent had a lawyer resulted in the order after a hearing being denied when it was sought (18.5% vs 14.9%).…”

“…These orders show promise for preventing suicide4 5 and possibly mass shootings,6 but implementation has been slow and variable across jurisdictions in California 7. In addition, there are legitimate concerns about whether ERPOs, which can provide a life-saving, non-criminal solution to threats of firearm violence, are being used in ways that exacerbate racial and class-based inequities 8–10. We previously presented demographic information on individuals subject to GVROs—hereafter, ‘respondents’—in California over the first 4 years of implementation using the California Department of Justice’s (CA DOJ) restraining order data 7.…”

Effectiveness of Firearm Restriction, Background Checks, and Licensing Laws in Reducing Gun Violence

“…Implementation of ERPOs has been challenging in many states. Interviews with key informants illustrate that ERPO rollouts were confusing for law enforcement, courts, and attorneys (Pear et al 2021; Swanson et al 2017, 2019). For example, law enforcement officers were confused about when ERPOs should be used and what evidence was necessary, while some court systems were unsure whether criminal or family (civil) courts should handle the cases.…”

Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law

“…In our previous description of GVRO use and respondent demographics, we found uptake of the law to be substantially higher in San Diego than any other county in the state, providing an opportunity to leverage within-state variation. Importantly, this variation does not reflect fundamental differences in need between counties, but is rather a result of San Diego having a local champion of the law—the city attorney—who was in a position to advance implementation in her jurisdiction . As many states have recently enacted similar laws, and the federal government is explicitly supporting their adoption, these findings should be of interest to policy makers and researchers nationwide.…”

“…Importantly, this variation does not reflect fundamental differences in need between counties, but is rather a result of San Diego having a local champion of the law-the city attorney-who was in a position to advance implementation in her jurisdiction. 9 As many states have recently enacted similar laws, and the federal government is explicitly supporting their adoption, 10 these findings should be of interest to policy makers and researchers nationwide.…”