Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Community Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Department of Public Health Policy and Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, New York.
Am J Prev Med. 2023 Oct;65(4):649-656. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.03.023. Epub 2023 Apr 5.
Firearm violence is a public health crisis. Most states prohibit local firearm laws, but some states have laws that allow for lawsuits and other penalties against local governments and lawmakers who pass firearm laws deemed preempted. These punitive firearm preemptive laws may reduce firearm policy innovation, discussion, and adoption beyond preemption alone. Yet, it is unknown how these laws spread from state to state.
In 2022, using an event history analysis framework with state dyads, logistic regression models estimate the factors associated with adoption and diffusion of firearm punitive preemption laws, including state-level demographic, economic, legal, political, population, and state-neighbor factors.
As of 2021, 15 states had punitive firearm preemption laws. Higher numbers of background checks (AOR=1.50; 95% CI=1.15, 2.04), more conservative government ideology (AOR=7.79; 95% CI=2.05, 35.02), lower per capita income (AOR=0.16; 95% CI=0.05, 0.44), a higher number of permissive state firearm laws (AOR=2.75; 95% CI=1.57, 5.30), and neighboring state passage of the law (AOR=3.97; 95% CI=1.52, 11.51) were associated with law adoption.
Both internal and external state factors predict the adoption of punitive firearm preemption. This study may provide insight into which states are susceptible to adoption in the future. Advocates, especially in neighboring states without such laws, may want to focus their firearm safety policy efforts on opposing the passage of punitive firearm preemption.
枪支暴力是一场公共健康危机。大多数州都禁止制定地方枪支法，但有些州允许对通过被视为具有优先权的枪支法的地方政府和立法者提起诉讼和其他处罚。这些惩罚性枪支优先权法律可能会减少枪支政策的创新、讨论和通过，而不仅仅是通过优先权。然而，目前尚不清楚这些法律是如何在各州之间传播的。
2022 年，采用状态对偶事件历史分析框架，使用逻辑回归模型估计与枪支惩罚性优先权法律的采用和扩散相关的因素，包括州级人口统计学、经济、法律、政治、人口和州际因素。
截至 2021 年，有 15 个州拥有惩罚性枪支优先权法律。更多的背景调查（AOR=1.50；95%CI=1.15，2.04）、更保守的政府意识形态（AOR=7.79；95%CI=2.05，35.02）、更低的人均收入（AOR=0.16；95%CI=0.05，0.44）、更多的宽松州枪支法（AOR=2.75；95%CI=1.57，5.30）以及相邻州通过该法律（AOR=3.97；95%CI=1.52，11.51）与法律的通过有关。
内部和外部州因素都预示着惩罚性枪支优先权的通过。本研究可以为哪些州可能在未来更容易通过该法律提供一些见解。倡导者，特别是在没有此类法律的相邻州，可能希望将他们的枪支安全政策努力集中在反对通过惩罚性枪支优先权上。
