Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOS) can prevent individuals in crisis from possessing firearms

They reduce incidence of mass shootings and suicides

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) laws are bipartisan policy proposals which can be instrumental in preventing people who are a threat to themselves or others from possessing firearms. For North Carolina, this law could be highly effective in addressing situations of hate-related gun crimes, mass shootings, suicides, and intimate partner shootings, potentially saving hundreds of lives.

North Carolinians overwhelmingly support passage of an ERPO law: A June 2022 WRAL News poll showed 87% of North Carolinians polled supported passing a red flag law.1

How do ERPO laws work?

Connecticut, Indiana, California, Washington, Oregon, Florida, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and Hawaii.[2] All but two of these laws have gone into effect since 2016.[3] Dozens more states are working to pass ERPO laws in the wake of recent school shootings.[4]

Law enforcement can report in all nineteen states and the District of Columbia. Family members or intimate partners can report in California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Healthcare workers can report can report in Hawaii and Maryland. School personnel can report in California and New York. Lastly, the employer or coworker of the respondent can report in California and Hawaii.[5]

…many of these states have expressly made it a crime to knowingly file a false or intentionally harassing petition, in addition to other applicable penalties for perjury or filing false statements.”[6]

… after a hearing in which testimony or other evidence is presented to determine if the individual presents a credible threat of harm to themselves or others.[7]

“Ex parte” means the order for removal of weapons may be issued without prior notice to the individual.

within a short period of time (usually less than three weeks after the ex parte order is issued) to determine if the behavior demonstrates a credible threat.

… no order is issued and the weapons remain in the individual’s possession. If an order was previously issued ex parte, the person’s weapons are returned.

an order will be issued for removal of the weapons – often up to a year. If an order was previously issued ex parte, the person’s weapons will not be returned for the duration of the order – typically up to one year.

court costs, attorney fees, and even criminal punishment – for anyone that misuses or abuses the ERPO process simply to harass or annoy an individual.

Why they are effective at reducing gun violence

  • A study conducted by the FBI found that the average mass shooter exhibits four to five “observable and concerning behaviors” before their attacks.[8] However, states without ERPO laws have no clear way of addressing these behaviors or intervening to prevent violence.

 

  • The shooters in Parkland, Florida[9]; Isla Vista, California and Boone, NC[10] had behaviors that would have set the ERPO process in motion if these laws were in place at that time.

 

  • A study revealed that 56% of mass shooters showed signs of distress[11] which would have been actionable if ERPO laws were in place. This legislation can prevent mass shooters from possessing weapons.

 

  • ERPO laws have proven effective at reducing suicides, which account for more than half of gun deaths in NC.[12] For every 10-20 guns taken through ERPO orders issued in Connecticut and Indiana, at least one suicide has been prevented.[13],[14]

 

  • Studies show that up to 80% of those contemplating suicide display clear signs of their intention.[15]

 

  • A study conducted in Maryland in 2019 showed that states that utilize clinician reported ERPOs for suicidal individuals need to implement minimal training to effectively identify those at risk. Most clinicians only needed to read a brief explanation of the law to understand how to utilize ERPOs. Training is of the utmost important though as these laws are underused by clinicians who are not trained in or aware of the presence of these laws.[16]

 

  • After passing an ERPO law, Indiana’s firearm suicide rate dropped by 7.5% in the ten years that followed.[17]

 

  • Maryland’s 2019 ERPO law was used in at least four cases involving “significant threats” against schools in its first three months.[18]

 

  • In the first three years after the execution of California’s ERPO law, 58 cases involved individuals threatening a mass shooting, including six that involved minors threatening to target schools. A look at 21 of these cases found that none of the threatened shootings occurred, nor had any other type of gun violence been perpetrated by the respondents.[19]

 

  • A study in Washington State looked at all ERPO data between 8 December 2016 and 10 May 2019 and found that 29% of respondents were still receiving treatment in the year following the initiation of the ERPO process, indicating that ERPOs are useful in beginning mental health treatment.[20]

 

  • Of all the cases reviewed in Washington State, 87% of the ERPOs were filed by law enforcement. This number could point to a misunderstanding of ERPO laws due to underreporting by others. Thus, improving knowledge of ERPO laws is hugely important when implementing them.[21]

[1] Haggerty D. Although NC senators support recent gun control legislation, state GOP leaders won’t talk about red flag law. WRAL News. https://www.wral.com/although-nc-senators-support-recent-gun-control-legislation-state-gop-leaders-won-t-talk-about-red-flag-law/20364372/

[2]  Giffords Law Center. Extreme Risk Protection Orders. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/

[3] Rowhani-Rahbar A, Bellenger MA, Gibb L, et al. Annals of Internal Medicine. Extreme Protection Orders in Washington: A Statewide Descriptive Study. 1 Sept. 2020

[4] Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Extreme Risk Protection Orders. https://gunresponsibility.org/solution/erpo/

[5] Rooney L, Conrick KM, Bellenger MA, et al. Understanding the process, context, and characteristics of Extreme Risk Protection Orders: a statewide study. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 2021;32(4):2125–2142. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2021.0186

[6] Giffords Law Center. Extreme Risk Protection Orders. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/

[7] Giffords Law Center. Extreme Risk Protection Orders. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/

[8] FBI. A study of pre-attack behaviors of active shooters in the United States between 2000 and 2013. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view

[9] Giffords Law Center. Extreme Risk Protection Orders. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/

[10] Wis News 10. Officials: Man killed his mother, stepfather and 2 deputies in Watauga County, N.C. mass shooting. 2021 Apr.  https://www.wistv.com/2021/04/29/officials-man-killed-his-mother-stepfather-deputies-watauga-county-nc-mass-shooting/

[11] Everytown for Gun Safety. Mass shootings in America 2009 – 2020. 2021 Jun. https://bit.ly/3fQBlc2

[12] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020, North Carolina Suicide Firearm Deaths. 2022. https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-reports

[13] Swanson JW, Norko MA, Hsiu-Ju L, et al. Implementation and Effectiveness of Connecticut’s Risk-Based Gun Removal Law: Does it Prevent Suicides? Law and Contemporary Problems. 2017;80(2):179-208.

[14] Swanson JW, Easter MM, Alanis-Hirsch K, et al. Criminal Justice and Suicide Outcomes with Indiana’s Risk-Based Gun Seizure Law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2019 Jun;47(2):188-197.

[15] Giffords Law Center. Extreme Risk Protection Orders. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/

[16] Frattaroli S, Hoops K, Irvin NA, et al. Assessment of Physician Self-reported Knowledge and Use of Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protection Order law. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Dec;2(12):e1918037. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18037

[17]  Kivisto AJ, Phalen PL. Effects of Risk-Based Firearm Seizure Laws in Connecticut and Indiana on Suicide Rates, 1981–2015. Psychiatric Services. 2018 Aug;69(8):855-862. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201700250

[18] Broadwater L. Sheriff: Maryland’s ‘red flag’ law prompted gun seizures after four ‘significant threats’ against schools. The Baltimore Sun. 2019 Jan15 https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-red-flag-update-20190115-story.html 

[19] UC Davis. Extreme risk protection orders to prevent mass shootings: What does the research show?  2022 June 17. https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/extreme-risk-protection-orders-to-prevent-mass-shootings-what-does-the-research-show/2022/06  

[20] Rowhani-Rahbar A, et al. Extreme Protection Orders in Washington: A Statewide Descriptive Study. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020 Sept 1.

[21] Id.