Understanding the circumstances and stakeholder perceptions of gun violence restraining order use in California: A qualitative study

Abstract

Risk-based firearm removal policies are relatively new, and research on their implementation and effectiveness is limited. Using an interpretive phenomenological approach, we interviewed stakeholders in California's gun violence restraining order (GVRO) process to learn about circumstances in which GVROs are appropriate. Two primary themes emerged:(1) GVROs are most useful when there is acute risk of harm with a firearm, in the context of cognitive decline, or as related cases proceed through the courts, and (2) GVROs fill a gap in the policy landscape. Perceptions varied regarding the role of GVROs among preexisting violence prevention tools. Several informants perceived racial/ethnic disparities in GVRO use. Policy Implications: Understanding practitioners' perceptions of GVRO utility may help inform implementation and ensure that these policies equitably improve public health and safety. These results highlight the need for additional research on the impact of GVROs and possible disparities in use.

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

“…This may reflect the higher proportion of cases in California that are for threatened other-directed harm, which can involve criminal offences like threats, assault or domestic battery. Key informants in California previously suggested arrests and GVROs can sometimes be complementary, such as when individuals at risk for violence would otherwise have access to firearms after posting bail 9. However, there may be cause for concern if GVROs, which are civil mechanisms, are leading to arrests.…”

“…Key informants in California previously suggested arrests and GVROs can sometimes be complementary, such as when individuals at risk for violence would otherwise have access to firearms after posting bail. 9 However, there may be cause for concern if GVROs, which are civil mechanisms, are leading to arrests. If they are used punitively without complementary social service resources, family and friends may be discouraged from alerting law enforcement to potentially dangerous situations out of fear of enmeshing the person at risk in the criminal legal system.…”

“…These orders show promise for preventing suicide4 5 and possibly mass shootings,6 but implementation has been slow and variable across jurisdictions in California 7. In addition, there are legitimate concerns about whether ERPOs, which can provide a life-saving, non-criminal solution to threats of firearm violence, are being used in ways that exacerbate racial and class-based inequities 8–10. We previously presented demographic information on individuals subject to GVROs—hereafter, ‘respondents’—in California over the first 4 years of implementation using the California Department of Justice’s (CA DOJ) restraining order data 7.…”

Petitions for Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Second Amendment Sanctuary Status in Colorado

“…ERPOs (also colloquially referred to as “red flag laws”) are civil restraining orders that allow eligible individuals or groups (“petitioners”) to formally request a judge to temporarily prohibit specific individuals (“respondents”) from purchasing or otherwise possessing firearms, so long as the judge agrees that the respondent is contemporaneously at extreme risk of firearm violence. 1 , 2 , 3 While processes vary slightly by state, ERPOs are typically reviewed by a judge for an immediate emergency ex parte order, which is reviewed at a hearing to determine if the order would be extended to a year. As of June 2023, ERPO-type laws had been implemented in 21 states and the District of Columbia.…”