Study: Red flag laws can prevent harm, but more research is needed

The study noted that the logic behind these laws is based on the premise that “identifiable risk factors” may predict future violence, such as intent sometimes articulated by those who are suicidal, or when someone has previously inflicted interpersonal violence. The theory is that reducing firearm access to those individuals could reduce harm to themselves or others.

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.

The study concluded that it’s critical to consider and identify gaps in how orders are granted and enforced under these kinds of laws.

“Research has shown that well-implemented firearm policy that is based on evidence-based risk factors can be effective in reducing all types of firearm injury,” Zeoli said.

In May, Michigan enacted a law that would a judge to temporarily remove the firearms of an individual who is believed to be at risk of using the weapons, following a petition from medical professionals, family members, guardians, current and former dating partners and police. It was aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals, domestic abusers and those who are suicidal.

Republicans said they were concerned that the law, known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, would infringe on individual due process and Second Amendment rights, while Democrats expressed concern about the law targeting people of color. Livingston County Sheriff Mike Murphy has said he won’t enforce the law, set to go into effect next year.

It was part of a three-part package passed by Michigan’s Democratic-led Legislature after the mass shooting at MSU that claimed the lives of three students and severely injured five other students. In 2021, a 15-year-old shooter killed four Oxford High School students and injured seven others with a 9 mm handgun bought for him by his parents.

Other Michigan gun control laws passed in April were universal background checks and registration for all firearm purchases. Secure storage requirement of firearms in homes where a minor is present was a law inspired by the Oxford tragedy.

A spokesperson for a gun control advocacy group reacted to the UM study.

Kris Brown, president of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said evidence-based gun violence prevention policies like extreme risk laws and background checks work, but only if they are implemented properly and loopholes are closed. But currently, she said, one in five gun sales are still performed without a background check due to loopholes in the law.

“ERPOs are among the strongest tools we have to stop domestic gun violence, and one of the biggest obstacles to their implementation is the public’s lack of awareness of their availability and process in the more than twenty states and the District of Columbia that have such laws,” Brown said. “Removing guns from someone in a state of crisis removes the immediate threat and the danger of someone taking a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Time and time again, when tragedy strikes, we search for ways it could have been prevented. ERPOs are one of the ways to intervene before a momentary crisis turns deadly.”

The Great Lakes Gun Rights group did not respond Monday when asked for a comment.

©2023 www.detroitnews.com. Visit at detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.