
This article presents a systematic review of the literature concerning ERPO laws, their use, and their effectiveness. It also provides existing evidence regarding ERPO implementation and effectiveness and carves a pathway forward for future research, policy, & practice.

This study analyzes over 1,400 ERPOs in Connecticut between 2013 and 2020 in several domains: respondent demographics, circumstances leading to ERPO filing, type of threat, number and type of firearms removed, prevalence of mental illness and drug and alcohol use, and legal outcomes.

This Article presents an overview of ERPO laws, the rationale behind their development, and a review and analysis that considers emerging constitutional challenges to these laws (under both the Second Amendment and due process protections) in the post-Bruen era.

ERPOs empower law enforcement, family members, and others to work with courts to temporarily remove firearms from
those who pose a danger to themselves or others. Research suggests that ERPOs are a valuable gun
violence prevention tool that can save lives.

Researchers collected and abstracted information from ERPO cases from six states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, and Washington).

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.

Reducing the availability of highly lethal and commonly used suicide methods has been associated with declines in suicide rates of as much as 30%-50% in other countries. The theory and evidence underlying means restriction is outlined.