Research

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.

In four ERPO states, researchers found a mean reduction of 3.79 firearm suicides per 100,000 people one year after ERPO adoption and found that there was no suicide means substitution effect, meaning that people who were not able to attempt suicide by firearm did not go on to die by suicide by other means.

This article discusses site visits to model ERPO jurisdictions, including to Lake County, Illinois, as valuable and insightful tools for identifying key leaders, interested parties, and opportunities to convene these stakeholders in coordination with other supporting implementers.

According to researchers, in California, more than 67% of 3,531 surveyed individuals had never heard of an ERPO, though non-gun owners were more likely to be familiar with the topic than gun owners. When evaluating risk-based scenarios, 82% said ERPOs would be appropriate for dementia cases and 73% said ERPOs would be appropriate if someone has threatened to harm someone else. Notably, gun owners were overall more likely to approve of ERPO use in high-stakes scenarios (between 80.6%–89.9%) as compared to their peer non-gun owners (73%–81%).

After interviewing 35 professionals involved in ERPO in Oregon, including law enforcement, judges, district and city attorney’s offices, and professionals in suicide and domestic violence prevention and substance use, the researchers found that insufficient funding and resources, petition completion time constraints, safety and timeliness concerns, and enforcement mechanisms acted as barriers to the ERPO process. Conducting risk assessments, non-confrontational enforcement approaches, expansion of petitioner eligibility, allowing law enforcement to petition 24/7, and requirements for documentation of firearm surrender can improve implementation.

ERPO use was higher in rural areas (1%) and suburban areas (66%) as compared to urban areas. The racial demographics of respondents were roughly the same as the distribution of race in each urbanicity category. Cases for suicidal threats were more common in non-urban petitions and cases for interpersonal violence threats were more common in urban petitions. 

43.9% of petitions evaluated in the study noted threats to themselves or suicidal ideation as the precipitating event while over half (50.8%) noted interpersonal violence as the precipitating event. 24.6% of the petitions were filed due to threats to both self and others. In about 36% of petitions, unlawful or reckless firearm usage was noted. Over 77.5% of final orders were granted.

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.

An examination of ERPO implementation to date through eight components of implementation – adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The paper offers recommendations to improve ERPO implementation based on promising practices from around the country.

Approximately 18% of the 488 ERPO respondents from Washington State in the study were arrested in the year prior to the ERPO; 18% were arrested during the precipitating event window (4 days before to 4 days after the ERPO); 19.5% were arrested during the reminder of the ERPO; and 10.3% of respondents were arrested in the year after the ERPO.

Records from four ERPO states (CA, CT, MD, WA) were used to determine the number of ERPOs needed to save one life. The authors found that one suicide was prevented for every 17–23 ERPOs issued. The effects were slightly greater among ERPO respondents with documented suicidality, estimating that for every 13–18 ERPOs issued, one suicide is prevented.

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.

Of petitions filed in Colorado from January 2020 to December 2022, 37.3% were in second amendment (2A) sanctuaries. Petitions in 2A counties were less likely to be filed by law enforcement than petitions in non-2A counties (31.7% in 2A counties vs. 64.9% in non-2A counties) and were less likely to have an emergency ERPO granted (48.4% of emergency ERPOs were granted in 2A counties v. 78.0% in non-2A counties).

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.

In a survey of law enforcement officers in 14 ERPO states and DC, 81.3% of the officers reported that they were very or somewhat familiar with ERPO and 56.2% said they received ERPO training. LEO opinions about ERPO laws were generally favorable but varied by type of situation used and political ideology. LEO support for ERPO was highest for cases of intimate partner violence (71.4%–78.6%) and lowest for cases of suicidality (54.2%–73.3%).

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.