Gun violence restraining orders in California, 2016–2018: case details and respondent mortality

Abstract

BackgroundGun violence restraining orders (GVROs), implemented in California in 2016, temporarily prohibit individuals at high risk of violence from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition. We sought to describe the circumstances giving rise to GVROs issued 2016–2018, provide details about the GVRO process and quantify mortality outcomes for individuals subject to these orders (‘respondents’).MethodsFor this cross-sectional description of GVRO respondents, 2016–2018, we abstracted case details from court files and used LexisNexis to link respondents to mortality data through August 2020.ResultsWe abstracted information for 201 respondents with accessible court records. Respondents were mostly white (61.2%) and men (93.5%). Fifty-four per cent of cases involved potential harm to others alone, 15.3% involved potential harm to self alone and 25.2% involved both. Mass shooting threats occurred in 28.7% of cases. Ninety-six and one half per cent of petitioners were law enforcement officers and one-in-three cases resulted in arrest on order service. One-year orders after a hearing (following 21-day emergency/temporary orders) were issued in 53.5% of cases. Most (84.2%) respondents owned at least one firearm, and firearms were removed in 55.9% of cases. Of the 379 respondents matched by LexisNexis, 7 (1.8%) died after the GVRO was issued: one from a self-inflicted firearm injury that was itself the reason for the GVRO and the others from causes unrelated to violence.ConclusionsGVROs were used most often by law enforcement officers to prevent firearm assault/homicide and post-GVRO firearm fatalities among respondents were rare. Future studies should investigate additional respondent outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity.

Changes in suicide in California from 2017 to 2021: a population-based study

“…Future studies with more granular data on method of suicide should explore these questions. Either way, investment in firearm violence prevention strategies—including education on safe storage practices and promotion of extreme risk protection orders (Pear et al 2022 )—may help reduce risk for firearm suicide.…”

Law Enforcement Officer Knowledge of, Attitudes Toward, and Willingness to Use Extreme Risk Protection Orders

“…However, LEOs were the least likely to agree with using an ERPO in the suicide scenarios. This reticence is also reflected in how ERPOs are being used in California, where only 15% of ERPOs in the first 3 years were issued for suicide threats alone . Extreme risk protection orders may be underused for suicide prevention in Washington and Colorado as well …”

“…Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have ERPO laws, with most enacted after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in February 2018. The ERPO laws seem to be effective at preventing firearm suicide [1][2][3] and possibly mass shootings, [4][5][6] but slow uptake has limited their impact. 7,8 Implementation and use of ERPOs largely depends on law enforcement officers (LEOs), who are permissible petitioners (ie, the individuals requesting ERPOs) in all ERPO states but Vermont and are the only permissible petitioner in 4 states.…”

“…Currently, 21 states and the District of Columbia have ERPO laws, with most enacted after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in February 2018. The ERPO laws seem to be effective at preventing firearm suicide and possibly mass shootings, but slow uptake has limited their impact …”

An Exploration of Productivity Costs and Years of Potential Life Lost: Understanding the Impact of Premature Mortality From Injury in Mongolia

“…20 Another study reveals that, from 2016 to 2018, 93.5% of the 201 victims were men, with one partner involved in 15.3% of cases, and both partners involved in 25.2% of cases. 24…”