If implemented properly, firearm legislation can make a difference when it comes to preventing gun-related injuries and death according to a recent policy study from researchers at the University of Michigan.
How much of a difference, however, remains to be seen as many states have only recently adopted their own laws which can remove firearms from a person’s possession if found to be a safety risk to themselves or others.
This means more research on the topic is needed to make a clearer link according to the study, which was published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in June of 2023.
“We know that for any type of firearm-policy, not just extreme risk protection orders, for gains in safety to be realized these laws have to be used and they have to be used with the right population – the population that is truly at risk,” said April Zeoli, policy core director with U-M’s Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention.
“When people identify somebody who is at risk of suicide or at risk of committing a mass shooting ... that information needs to go somewhere. It can’t just stop with them.”
Michigan became the 21st state to enact its own version extreme risk protection orders in May following a mass shooting on Michigan State University’s campus in February.
As part of her research, Zeoli and colleagues considered four different types of firearm-related laws restricting individuals from accessing guns if they are at risk of harming themselves or others, otherwise known as red flag laws.
The logic behind these laws, the study noted, is to keep guns out of the hands of certain individuals by using “identifiable risk factors” which could predict future violent incidents, such as when a person articulates suicidal thoughts.
Removing a gun from the equation, researchers noted, was by that extension a “logical approach to reduce firearm violence.”
“While these laws hold promise in reducing firearm deaths, and indeed there is evidence supporting their effectiveness, the prohibitions against possession and purchase need to be fully implemented to meet their potential. ... It is inarguable that more research is needed on both the implementation and outcomes of these gun safety laws; however, the research that we currently have is compelling,” the study read.
With respect to fully implementing extreme risk protection orders, which researchers also refer to as ERPO, the study indicates implementation of these measures have been challenging in many states.
This includes confusion regarding how law enforcement should serve a risk protection order, as well as how best to find an individual with an order against them and have them safely relinquish their guns. Further confusion abounds over jurisdictional issues, too, including which court would have jurisdiction over a petition for risk protection orders.
It was found people capable of filing risk protection orders, such as family members or physicians, also lacked the knowledge they even had the ability, the study noted, further complicating the law’s usage.
“In a representative survey of California adults, 30 percent of those surveyed indicated that they would not be willing to ask a judge for an ERPO, with the most common explanation being that they did not know enough about them,” the study noted. “Given this situation, the number of ERPOs issued has been low, especially in certain counties.”
Given this, states had varying responses to whether risk protection orders had a tangible impact on firearm-related violence.
Indiana and Connecticut, states which were among the earliest to have passed these kinds of laws, were shown to have had fewer gun-based suicides since they had enacted risk protection orders, “suggesting that the removal of firearms under ERPOs saved lives.”
On a more micro level, however, “research found no evidence of an association” between San Diego’s risk protection law usage and a decrease in overall firearm violence, assault or suicide rates.
Asked about the discrepancy, Zeoli said the San Diego study only scrutinized one county “using ERPOs in a very specific way through the prosecutor’s office,” meaning she didn’t put much stock into its findings.
“It is possible to prevent gun violence,” Zeoli said. “Gun violence isn’t a foregone conclusion of life and having a Second Amendment ... It’s preventable probably a good portion of the time, but to prevent it, we need to us the tools at our disposals.”
Those tools Zeoli refers to also includes restrictions for those with felony or violent misdemeanor convictions, as well as domestic violence restraining orders, or what the study calls DRVOs. These, too, can enact firearm restrictions in certain circumstances.
However research with respect to domestic violence restraining orders is mixed when it comes to determining whether firearm recovery “reduces the likelihood of future violent offenses” or not.
That’s made all the more complex, the study added, when considering “some of the associated reductions of DVRO firearm restriction laws and intimate partner homicide do not hold when race-specific populations are examined.” This means that while some states do see a reduction in intimate partner homicides for white victims, that same data does not bare out for Black victims.
Michigan lawmakers signed off on a host of firearm legislation, including instituting extreme risk protection orders, in early 2023. The bills did not obtain immediate effect upon passage, however, meaning the policies will not go into effect until sometime in 2024.
As part of that legislative package, Michigan will eventually have requirements surrounding the safe storage of firearms around the presence of a minor, universal background checks for the sale of all firearms in the state and means to petition and possibly remove guns from at-risk individuals.