Cargando…
Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders
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 confisca...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8527814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34670617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-021-00353-7 |
_version_ | 1784586145962655744 |
---|---|
author | Barnard, Leslie M. McCarthy, Megan Knoepke, Christopher E. Kaplan, Sabrina Engeln, James Betz, Marian E. |
author_facet | Barnard, Leslie M. McCarthy, Megan Knoepke, Christopher E. Kaplan, Sabrina Engeln, James Betz, Marian E. |
author_sort | Barnard, Leslie M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8527814 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85278142021-10-21 Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders Barnard, Leslie M. McCarthy, Megan Knoepke, Christopher E. Kaplan, Sabrina Engeln, James Betz, Marian E. Inj Epidemiol Short Report 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. BioMed Central 2021-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8527814/ /pubmed/34670617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-021-00353-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Short Report Barnard, Leslie M. McCarthy, Megan Knoepke, Christopher E. Kaplan, Sabrina Engeln, James Betz, Marian E. Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders |
title | Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders |
title_full | Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders |
title_fullStr | Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders |
title_full_unstemmed | Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders |
title_short | Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders |
title_sort | colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders |
topic | Short Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8527814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34670617 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-021-00353-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT barnardlesliem coloradosfirstyearofextremeriskprotectionorders AT mccarthymegan coloradosfirstyearofextremeriskprotectionorders AT knoepkechristophere coloradosfirstyearofextremeriskprotectionorders AT kaplansabrina coloradosfirstyearofextremeriskprotectionorders AT engelnjames coloradosfirstyearofextremeriskprotectionorders AT betzmariane coloradosfirstyearofextremeriskprotectionorders |