The study, published online in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in June, examined four types of laws that restrict access to firearms from individuals, including those considered to be at risk of harming themselves or others. These are often known as red flag laws, and place restrictions on people versus weapons. They are opposed by many Republicans and gun rights groups. Michigan passed such a law in May, following 20 other states, in response to the Feb. 13 mass shooting at Michigan State University.
Properly implemented firearm injury prevention policies can play a role in preventing gun-related injuries and death, but more research is needed, according to a policy review led by the University of Michigan Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention.
It identified challenges in implementing these laws, also known as extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws. Among those challenges are uncertainty among law enforcement, attorneys and courts over such things as which court has jurisdiction over a petition and the time commitment involved in finding the individuals, serving the order and confiscating weapons, according to the study. Researchers also found a lack of knowledge about the laws among potential petitioners and those unwilling to ask a judge for an order.
“Given this situation, the number of ERPOs issued has been low,” the study says. “For example, 40 percent of Washington counties did not have any ERPO petitions for at least the first two years the ERPO law was in effect, and 39 percent of Oregon counties did not have any for at least the first 14 months after the law was enacted.”
Research regarding whether these laws decrease violence is still in its earliest stages, since most states that have passed red flag laws have done so in the last seven years, the study says. But it outlined research in Connecticut and Indiana “suggesting that the removal of firearms under ERPOs saved lives.” Other research in San Diego showed no relationship between ERPO laws and overall violence.
The UM study also examined states with laws that have firearm restrictions for those with a domestic violence restraining order, which showed a 12%-14% decrease in intimate partner homicides, depending on provisions of the law or when the domestic violence restraining order firearm restriction was granted. However, a study in California showed that it was “unclear whether firearm recovery reduces the likelihood of future violent offenses.”
“Some of the associated reductions of DVRO firearm restriction laws and intimate partner homicide do not hold when race-specific populations are examined,” according to the study. “For example, state DVRO firearm restriction laws … are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide of White, but not Black, victims.”
Firearm restriction laws for those with felony and violent misdemeanor convictions were also examined in the study. In states with violent misdemeanor convictions, the study cited research showing an 18% percent drop in homicide rates, a 23% decline in domestic violence homicide rates and a 19% decrease in firearm injury-related hospitalization rates.
“However, enactment of California’s violent misdemeanor firearm restriction (along with simultaneous passage of a comprehensive background check law) was not associated with changes in state-level firearm-related homicides or suicides,” the study says.
