Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders

Leslie M. Barnard · Megan J. McCarthy · Christopher E. Knoepke · Sabrina Kaplan · James Engeln · Marian E. Betz

22 citations0/0 files storedInjury Epidemiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Gun Ownership and Violence Research Criminal Law and Policy Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are a relatively new type of law that are being considered or implemented in many states in the United States. Colorado's law went into effect on January 1, 2020, after significant controversy and concern over potential misuse of the law to confiscate weapons; many (n = 37 of 64) counties declared themselves "2nd Amendment (2A) sanctuaries" and said they would not enforce the law. Here, reviewed the patterns of use of the law during its first year. METHODS: We obtained all court records for ERPO petitions filed between January 1 and December 31, 2020. Data elements were abstracted by trained staff using a standardized guide. We calculated the proportion of petitions that were approved or denied/dismissed, identified cases of obvious misuse, and examined patterns by 2A county status. FINDING AND RESULTS: In 2020, 109 ERPO petitions were filed in Colorado; of these, 61 were granted for a temporary ERPO and 49 for a full (year-long) ERPO. Most petitions filed by law enforcement officers were granted (85%), compared to only 15% of petitions filed by family or household members. Of the 37 2A sanctuary counties, 24% had at least one petition filed, versus 48% of non-2A sanctuary counties. Across the 2A counties, there were 1.52 ERPOs filed per 100,000 population, compared to 2.05 ERPOs filed per 100,000 in non-2A counties. There were 4 cases of obvious law misuse; none of those petitions resulted in an ERPO or firearm confiscation. CONCLUSION: State-level studies suggest ERPOs may prevent firearm injuries. Robust implementation, however, is critical for maximal effect. Understanding ERPO experiences and challenges can inform policy creation and enaction in other states, including identifying how best to address concerns and facilitate evaluation.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

2006A National Study of Violent Behavior in Persons With Schizophrenia 2003National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action 2011Mental disorder and violence: is there a relationship beyond substance use?2004State and Local Prevalence of Firearms Ownership Measurement, Structure, and Trends 2021Firearm purchasing and firearm violence during the coronavirus pandemic in the United States: a cross-sectional study 2018Effects of Risk-Based Firearm Seizure Laws in Connecticut and Indiana on Suicide Rates, 1981–2015 2020Increased Firearm Injury During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Hidden Urban Burden 2019Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings

Cited by

2024Extreme Risk Protection Orders in the United States: A Systematic Review of the Research

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.