Barnard Leslie M, Betz Marian E, Frattaroli Shannon, Knoepke Christopher E, Christy Annette, Schleimer Julia P, Pear Veronica A, McCarthy Megan, Kapoor Reena, Norko Michael A, Rowhani-Rahbar Ali, Ma Wenjuan, Wintemute Garen J, Swanson Jeffrey W, Easter Michele M, Zeoli April M
Firearm Injury Prevention Initiative; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA.
Inj Epidemiol. 2025 Jun 3;12(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s40621-025-00585-x.
Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are civil court orders that temporarily prohibit firearm purchase and possession by someone ("respondent") at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. Despite ERPOs being currently available in 21 states, DC, and U.S. V.I., little is known about the circumstances under which they are used across states.
Using a standardized protocol, we abstracted ERPO petitions and associated court documents from 6 states to examine characteristics of respondents, documented risks of harm, and court outcomes. Included cases were filed through June 30, 2020, from 2013 (Connecticut) or from when the law went into effect (California: 2016; Colorado: 2020; Florida: 2018; Maryland: 2018; and Washington: 2016).
There were 6,634 ERPO petitions across included states. The median age of respondents was 40.0 years (SD: 16.4), and 10.8% were female. Almost half of petitions noted suicidal threats, plans, or ideation (43.9%) as the precipitating event, half noted interpersonal violence threats (50.8%), and one quarter (24.6%) noted threats to both self and others. Around one third (36.0%) noted unlawful or reckless firearm use. The majority of petitions (84.1%) indicated the respondent had current or recent access to a firearm. Most (77.5%) of the final orders (post-hearing) were granted. ERPO implementation varied across states, particularly with regard to how frequently they were used, for what type of threat, and by what type of petitioner.
This study examined ERPO law implementation in 6 states, highlighting differences and similarities. This comparison allows for a more nuanced understanding of variation in ERPO use, which can inform ERPO implementation and future studies of ERPOs' effectiveness.
极端风险保护令（ERPOs）是一种民事法庭命令，它会暂时禁止处于立即伤害自己或他人风险中的人（“被申请人”）购买和持有枪支。尽管目前有21个州、哥伦比亚特区和美属维尔京群岛实施了极端风险保护令，但对于各州使用该命令的情况却知之甚少。
我们采用标准化方案，从6个州提取了极端风险保护令申请及相关法庭文件，以研究被申请人的特征、记录在案的伤害风险以及法庭判决结果。纳入的案例涵盖2013年（康涅狄格州）或法律生效之时起（加利福尼亚州：2016年；科罗拉多州：2020年；佛罗里达州：2018年；马里兰州：2018年；华盛顿州：2016年）至2020年6月30日期间提交的案件。
纳入研究的各州共有6634份极端风险保护令申请。被申请人的年龄中位数为40.0岁（标准差：16.4），女性占10.8%。近一半的申请指出，自杀威胁、计划或想法（43.9%）是引发事件，一半指出人际暴力威胁（50.8%），四分之一（24.6%）指出对自己和他人的威胁。约三分之一（36.0%）指出存在非法或鲁莽使用枪支的情况。大多数申请（84.1%）表明被申请人目前或近期能够接触到枪支。大多数（77.5%）的最终命令（听证会后）获得批准。极端风险保护令的实施情况因州而异，特别是在使用频率、针对的威胁类型以及申请人类型方面。
本研究考察了6个州的极端风险保护令法律实施情况，突出了差异和相似之处。这种比较有助于更细致入微地理解极端风险保护令使用的差异，为极端风险保护令的实施及未来对其有效性的研究提供参考。
