Firearm Injury Prevention and Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) represent a potential mechanism to facilitate firearm-related lethal means safety. ERPOs are a legal mechanism that enables law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from, and prevent firearm purchase by, an individual who presents a significant danger to self or others, as determined by a court of law. While few jurisdictions currently allow mental health professionals to initiate ERPO petitions, it nonetheless seems important that clinicians be familiar with ERPOs, as clinicians may still serve an important role in disseminating information and facilitating judicious petitions. However, ERPO laws remain quite new, and the implications for mental health professionals when participating (directly or indirectly) in ERPOs remain unclear. This column introduces readers to ERPOs and offers resources to learn more about how ERPOs work across various jurisdictions.

Wortzel HS ，Simonetti JA ，Ryan AT ，Matarazzo BB ... -  《-》

Implementation of Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Colorado from 2020 to 2022: Firearm relinquishment and return and petitioner characteristics.

Firearm injury remains a public health problem, with nearly 50,000 firearm-related deaths in the US in 2021. Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) are civil restraining orders that intend to reduce firearm deaths by temporarily removing firearms from individuals who are threatening violence to themselves or others. We described ERPO use by petitioner type and implementation including firearm removal. All ERPO petitions filed in Colorado (1/1/2020-12/31/2022) were analyzed using an established abstraction tool and team-based approach. Case data abstracted from petitions and court documents were analyzed descriptively. Over three years, there were 353 ERPO petitions filed in Colorado. Only 39 % percent of granted petitions had documentation of firearms being relinquished. The average number firearms relinquished was 1.8 with a range of 1 to 31 firearms. One third (37.7 %) of petitions mentioned a mental health issue, 10 % had a renewal request, and half (54.6 %) of petitions were filed by law enforcement (LE). LE petitions filed were more likely to be granted temporary ERPOs (94.3 % vs 35.0 %, p < 0.0001) and full year ERPOs (79.7 % vs 39.3 %, p < 0.0001) compared to non-LE petitions. Results from these analyses shed light on data gaps surrounding ERPO use and implementation. Differences in LE vs others' ERPO outcomes suggest a need for additional research and training. ERPOs' efficacy hinges on removing access to firearms among those at risk, and a lack of documentation limits the ability to evaluate these policies. This suggests a need to standardize reporting to ensure ERPO utilization and impact can be evaluated.Mini abstract: This descriptive study assessed use, implementation and data gaps surrounding Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Colorado.Abbreviations: Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) are civil restraining orders that intend to reduce firearm deaths by temporarily removing firearms from individuals who are threatening violence to themselves or others.

Barnard LM ，Batta N ，McCarthy M ，Thies K ，Robinson C ，Schultze M ，Betz ME ，Knoepke CE ... -  《-》

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

Knoepke CE ，Barnard LM ，Batta N ，McCarthy M ，Thies K ，Olivencia C ，Robinson C ，Kettering S ，Huss S ，Betz ME ... -  《JAMA Network Open》

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response.

Frattaroli S ，Omaki E ，Molocznik A ，Allchin A ，Hopkins R ，Shanahan S ，Levinson A ... -  《-》

Extreme risk protection orders, race/ethnicity, and equity: Evidence from California.

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) provide a civil mechanism to temporarily remove firearm access from individuals at high risk of harming themselves or others. Evidence and theory suggest that ERPOs can prevent firearm-related harm, but the policy's impact on racial/ethnic equity is largely unknown. To examine potential inequities by race/ethnicity in public perceptions and use of California's ERPO law, we drew on two complementary data sources: 1) a 2020 state-representative survey of California adults, and 2) ERPO court documents for the first 3 years of policy implementation (2016-2018). Majorities (54-89%) of all racial/ethnic groups reported that ERPOs are at least sometimes appropriate, and 64-94% were willing to ask a judge for an ERPO for a family member. However, Black and Hispanic/Latinx survey participants less often perceived ERPOs as appropriate and were less willing to serve as petitioners, with Black participants citing lack of knowledge about ERPOs and not trusting the system to be fair as their top reasons for unwillingness. Similarly, review of ERPO court documents revealed that no family or household members served as petitioners for Black and Hispanic/Latinx ERPO respondents. Additionally, Black respondents were the least likely to have documented access to a firearm and legal representation in court. Racial/ethnic equity in ERPO use may be improved by reducing barriers to petitioning, incorporating non-law enforcement intervention professionals like behavioral health specialists into the ERPO process, providing legal assistance to respondents and petitioners, and investing in the social safety net.

Pear VA ，Schleimer JP ，Aubel AJ ，Buggs S ，Knoepke CE ，Pallin R ，Shev AB ，Tomsich E ，Wintemute GJ ，Kravitz-Wirtz N ... -  《-》