Throwback Thursday
Throwback Thursday
The Denver Accord Fact Sheets - Part 3: Extreme Risk Protection Order
This article was originally published on GVPedia.
The Denver Accord is a comprehensive gun violence prevention platform — led by GVPedia and supported by more than 40 organizations nationally — designed to guide policymakers’ efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States. It combines best practices from across the country with evidence-based research to create a comprehensive and effective set of policies and programs intended to stop the scourge of gun violence.
The Denver Accord includes four guiding principles and nine policy positions that, working in conjunction with each other, will stem the epidemic. This is the third in a series of fact sheets outlining those nine policy positions, which we will be highlighting across the next few Throwback Thursday posts.
There is no single solution to gun violence in America but it is clear that more guns do not make people safer. It is a multifaceted problem that requires a comprehensive solution.
An Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) — also sometimes known as a Red Flag Law — is a tool that families and close friends can use when they believe an individual may be planning to use a weapon to cause harm. ERPOs can be an effective violence prevention tool, which is why section 3 of the Denver Accord explores this policy.
The Denver Accord Part 3: Extreme Risk Protection Order
What is an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO)?
An ERPO is a civil order with due process issued by a court when someone is at risk of violence to self (including suicide) or others. A person who is subject to an ERPO cannot purchase or possess guns while the order is in place.
Most individuals who commit mass shootings or die by suicide exhibit signs of their intentions, but states without ERPO laws prevent families — who are the first to notice warning signs — from intervening before it is too late. Extreme risk laws focus on violent actions and threats, not mental health diagnoses, because most individuals with mental illness are never violent towards others.
ERPO differs from domestic violence protective orders.
EPROs only address weapon violence. Domestic violence (DV) protective orders provide a variety of remedies in addition to prohibiting respondents from possessing firearms. A DV protective order can require the respondent to stay away from the survivor, their workplace, their family, and other places they are likely to be, and give the survivor temporary custody of children and temporary control of residences.
How is an ERPO filed?
Laws differ from state to state but the process is very similar for most states.
1. A petitioner, usually a family member, household member, or law enforcement officer files a temporary ERPO petition.
2. The court approves or rejects the petition.
3. Law enforcement serves the ERPO. Guns are removed, and the ERPO is added to the background check system to bar gun purchases.
4. Final ERPO hearing is held; the respondent may challenge the petition.
5. Court issues final ERPO to last up to one year, or rejects the petition. When the order expires, the respondent may ask for the firearms to be returned. The background check system is updated.
States With Extreme Risk Protection Laws:
California 2016; Colorado 2019; Connecticut 1999; Florida 2018; Hawaii 2019; Illinois 2019; Indiana 2005; Maryland 2018; Massachusetts 2018; Nevada 2019; New Jersey 2019; New York 2019; Oregon 2018; Rhode Island 2018; Vermont 2018; Washington 2016; Washington, D.C. 2019.
The Research Showing How Licensing and Registration Reduces Gun Violence
The following summarizes the research on extreme risk laws.
A 2018 FBI study found that active shooters displayed an average of four to five concerning behaviors prior to the shootings, including problematic interpersonal interactions, mental health issues, and signs of violent intentions. For example, Jared Lee Loughner’s parents took away his shotgun over concerns about his behavior before he fatally shot six people and wounded 13 others, including Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
According to a 2017 study, for every 10.5 guns collected under Connecticut’s risk-based firearm removal law between 1999 and 2013, one person was stopped from taking his or her own life. Law enforcement found and removed guns in 99% of cases where a search was conducted, removing an average of seven guns per risk-warrant subject.
The same study found that one-third of ERPO respondents in Connecticut received mental health or substance use treatment while subject to the ERPO that they may not have otherwise received. The study concludes that the law effectively targets high-risk individuals without inconveniencing responsible gun owners.
A 2018 study found that Indiana’s 2005 risk-based firearm removal law was associated with a 7.5% reduction in firearm suicide rates, and Connecticut’s was responsible for a 14% reduction.
A 2015 study found that prosecutors in Marion County, IN, filed 404 court petitions regarding firearm removal by law enforcement between 2006 and 2013. The primary causes of removal was risk of suicide (68%), concerns about violence (21%), and the presence of psychosis (16%). Domestic disputes were indicated in 28% of cases and intoxication in 26% of court filings.
A 2019 case study of 159 petitions filed in California found that 21 were aimed at preventing mass shootings. The median age of subjects was 35 years old, and most were white males, made explicit threats, and owned firearms. The study found that no homicides or suicides were committed by gun violence restraining order (GVRO) subjects.
Twenty petitions resulting in 19 emergency hearings were filed during the first year of Massachusetts ERPO law. Fourteen ERPOs were issued at the hearings, three petitions were denied, and two were rescheduled or "not held." Firearms and/or ammunition were surrendered in 15 of the cases.
Suicide Prevention and ERPO
Research suggests a stronger relationship between ERPO laws and suicide deaths than homicide reductions.
Means matter. Limiting access to guns which are highly lethal will likely decrease suicide.
Suicides attempted with a firearm are lethal 82.5% of the time, compared to less than 3% by drug overdose which is, the most commonly used method to attempt suicide.
Suicide is often an impulsive decision, and 90% of people who survive suicide attempts don’t go on to kill themselves.
Temporarily removing firearms from a person in crisis can prevent tragedies because when a gun is present, there are no second chances.
Conclusion: Temporary risk-based firearms removal laws are promising tools for reducing domestic violence and preventing suicide and mass shootings by effectively targeting high-risk individuals without inconveniencing responsible gun owners.
Recommended Reading:
The full Extreme Risk Protection Order document can be found here: Extreme Risk Protection Order, Denver Accord Section 3
GVPedia is grateful to Nick Wilson and the experts, survivors, and advocates who contributed to the Denver Accord.
Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay.