scholarly journals Colorado’s first year of extreme risk protection orders

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie M. Barnard ◽  
Megan McCarthy ◽  
Christopher E. Knoepke ◽  
Sabrina Kaplan ◽  
James Engeln ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Year ◽  
Maximal Effect ◽  
Firearm Injuries ◽  
Protection Orders ◽  
Extreme Risk ◽  
The Law ◽  
Risk Protection ◽  
Data Elements

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.

Gun Regulations to Reduce Harm Caused

2021 ◽  
pp. 147-164
Keyword(s):  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gun Violence ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Mass Shootings ◽  
Background Checks ◽  
Protection Orders ◽  
Extreme Risk ◽  
Risk Protection ◽  
Policy Proposals

This chapter marks the start of the final section of the book, which focuses on the landscape of gun policymaking in the United States. The intention of this chapter is to examine gun policy proposals believed to reduce incidences of mass shootings and gun violence as a whole. Gun violence prevention advocates provide policy suggestions and deliberate about their chances of gaining traction, considering estimated levels of public support and the current political climate. Discussed first of all are proposals centering on restricting the lethality of weapons (e.g., those focused on ammunition, large capacity magazines, and assault weapons). Policies centered on reducing firearm access to restricted persons are then discussed: extreme risk protection orders, safe storage laws, and universal background checks. Lastly, other miscellaneous proposals are deliberated: age restrictions, ghost guns, funding for research pertaining to guns, a licensing system for firearms, and smart gun technology.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Washington

2020 ◽  
Vol 173 (5) ◽  
pp. 342-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Rowhani-Rahbar ◽  
M. Alex Bellenger ◽  
Lauren Gibb ◽  
Heather Chesnut ◽  
Madison Lowry-Schiller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Protection Orders ◽  
Extreme Risk ◽  
Risk Protection

scholarly journals Banning open carry of unloaded handguns decreases firearm-related fatalities and hospital utilization

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael A Callcut ◽  
Anamaria M Joyce Robles ◽  
Matthew W Mell
Keyword(s):  
Unintentional Injury ◽  
State Level ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Firearm Injuries ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Gun Laws ◽  
The Law ◽  
Incident Rate

BackgroundSince 1967, in California it has been illegal to openly carry a loaded firearm in public except when engaged in hunting or law enforcement. However, beginning January 1, 2012, public open carry of unloaded handguns also became illegal. Fatal and non-fatal (NF) firearm injuries were examined before and after adoption of the 2012 ban to quantify the effect of the new law on public health.MethodsState-level data were obtained directly from California and nine other US state inpatient and emergency department (ED) discharge databases, and the Centers for Disease Control Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. Case numbers of firearm fatalities, NF hospitalizations, NF ED visits, and state-level population estimates were extracted. Each incident was classified as unintentional, self-inflicted, or assault. Crude incidence rates were calculated. The strength of gun laws was quantified using the Brady grade. There were no changes to open carry in these nine states during the study. Using a difference-in-difference technique, the rate trends 3 years preban and postban were compared.ResultsThe 2012 open carry ban resulted in a significantly lower incident rate of both firearm-related fatalities and NF hospitalizations (p<0.001). The effect of the law remained significant when controlling for baseline state gun laws (p<0.001). Firearm incident rate drops in California were significant for male homicide (p=0.023), hospitalization for NF assault (p=0.021  male; p=0.025 female), and ED NF assault visits (p=0.04). No significant decreases were observed by sex for suicides or unintentional injury. Changing the law saved an estimated 337 lives (3.6% fewer deaths) and 1285 NF visits in California during the postban period.DiscussionOpen carry ban decreases fatalities and healthcare utilization even in a state with baseline strict gun laws. The most significant impact is from decreasing firearm-related fatal and NF assaults.Level of evidenceIII, epidemiology.

scholarly journals Providing driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants in California improves traffic safety

2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (16) ◽  
pp. 4111-4116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Lueders ◽  
Jens Hainmueller ◽  
Duncan Lawrence
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Year ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Positive Externalities ◽  
Emergency Assistance ◽  
Integration Of Immigrants ◽  
Hit And Run ◽  
The Law ◽  
Out Of Pocket Expenses

The integration of immigrants presents a major challenge for policymakers in the United States. In an effort to improve integration, several US states recently have implemented laws that provide driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants. These new laws have sparked widespread debate, but we lack evidence on the traffic safety impact of these policies. We examine the short-term effects of the largest-scale policy shift, California’s Assembly Bill 60 (AB60), under which more than 600,000 licenses were issued in the first year of implementation in 2015 alone. We find that, contrary to concerns voiced by opponents of the law, AB60 has had no discernible short-term effect on the number of accidents. The law primarily allowed existing unlicensed drivers to legalize their driving. We also find that, although AB60 had no effect on the rate of fatal accidents, it did decrease the rate of hit and run accidents, suggesting that the policy reduced fears of deportation and vehicle impoundment. Hit and run behaviors often delay emergency assistance, increase insurance premiums, and leave victims with significant out of pocket expenses. Overall, the results suggest that AB60 provides an example of how states can facilitate the integration of immigrants while creating positive externalities for the communities in which they live.

The Law and Labor Strife in the United States, 1881–1894

2000 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Currie ◽  
Joseph Ferrie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Legal Environment ◽  
Labor Disputes ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Unique Data ◽  
The Law

This article examines the effect of state-level legal innovations governing labor disputes in the late 1800s. This was a period of legal ferment in which worker organizations and employers actively lobbied state governments for changes in the rules governing labor disputes. Cross-state heterogeneity in the legal environment provides an unusual opportunity to investigate the effects of these laws. We use a unique data set with information on 12,965 strikes to show that most of these law changes had surprisingly little effect on strike incidence or outcomes. Important exceptions were maximum hours laws and the use of injunctions.

State-Level Policy Response to Mass Shootings

2020 ◽  
pp. 397-417
Author(s):  
Ramona Sue McNeal ◽  
Mary Schmeida ◽  
Lisa Dotterweich Bryan ◽  
Susan M. Kunkle
Keyword(s):  
Time Series Data ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Series Data ◽  
Mass Shootings ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Background Checks ◽  
Extreme Risk ◽  
Risk Protection

Recent mass shootings including Charleston, SC; Chattanooga, TN; Chardon, OH; Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA; and San Bernardino, California, have resulted in public outcry for action. Nevertheless, the response at the state level following these events has varied significantly, with some states loosening gun restrictions and others adopting a variety of gun safety policies ranging from private-sale background checks to extreme risk protection orders. Why has the state-level response varied so significantly? In exploring this question, this chapter examines the influence of state-level factors on current gun control legislation. This chapter explores the level of legislative action concerning the update and/or pass new laws for the years, 2009 through 2017. Pooled cross-sectional time series data that controls for variation between states and over time is used.

Use of extreme risk protection orders to reduce gun violence in Oregon

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
April M. Zeoli ◽  
Jennifer Paruk ◽  
Charles C. Branas ◽  
Patrick M. Carter ◽  
Rebecca Cunningham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gun Violence ◽  
Protection Orders ◽  
Extreme Risk ◽  
Risk Protection

scholarly journals Extreme Risk Protection Orders

2019 ◽  
Vol 94 (11) ◽  
pp. 1649-1653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suhas Gondi ◽  
Alexander G. Pomerantz ◽  
Chana A. Sacks
Keyword(s):  
Protection Orders ◽  
Extreme Risk ◽  
Risk Protection
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document