TL;DR: The origins and spread of the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement are assessed in this paper, where localities pass ordinances or resolutions that declare their jurisdiction's view that proposed or enacted state (or federal) gun safety laws are unconstitutional and therefore, local officials will not implement or enforce them.
Abstract: This article assesses the origins and spread of the Second Amendment sanctuary movement in which localities pass ordinances or resolutions that declare their jurisdiction's view that proposed or enacted state (or federal) gun safety laws are unconstitutional and therefore, local officials will not implement or enforce them. While it is important to assess Second Amendment sanctuaries from a legal perspective, it is equally as important to understand them in the context of a broader protest movement against any efforts to strengthen gun laws. As the gun violence prevention movement has gained strength across the United States, particularly at the state level, gun rights enthusiasts have turned to Second Amendment sanctuaries in order to create a counter narrative to the increasing political power of gun safety. By passing these ordinances or resolutions, local officials legitimize and fuel Second Amendment absolutism which poses real risks to public safety and democracy.
TL;DR: In the first year of the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) as discussed by the authors, 109 petitions were filed in Colorado, of which 61 were granted for a temporary ERPO and 49 for a full (year-long) ERPO.
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.
TL;DR: The suicide prevention collaborative of El Paso County may be more effective in preventing suicide as they are specific to local issues, sensitive to local culture, and informed by local data, community members, and stakeholders as mentioned in this paper .
Abstract: Abstract Colorado has consistently had one of the highest rates of suicide in the United States, and El Paso County has the highest number of suicide and firearm-related suicide deaths within the state. Community-based solutions like those of the Suicide Prevention Collaborative of El Paso County may be more effective in preventing suicide as they are specific to local issues, sensitive to local culture, and informed by local data, community members, and stakeholders.
TL;DR: The Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) as discussed by the authors was introduced by Gov. Eric Greitens and passed by the Missouri Legislature in June 2021, and many Missouri law enforcement agencies, including the Missouri Sheriff's Association, oppose it.
Abstract: Abstract In June 2021, Missouri passed the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” (SAPA). Though SAPA passed easily and had gubernatorial support, many Missouri law enforcement agencies, including the Missouri Sheriff’s Association, oppose it. Missing from this policy conversation, and deserving of analysis, is the voice of Missouri citizens. Using qualitative interview data and survey data, we explored what if anything Missouri gun owners knew about SAPA and what they perceived its effects would be on gun-related murders, suicides, gun thefts, and mass shootings. Most Missouri gun owners had not heard about SAPA and were ambivalent about its potential effect on gun safety outcomes. Our findings also indicate that respondents’ attitudes toward SAPA and the impact of such policy on safety is driven by gun ownership (i.e., primary versus living in a household with firearms), partisan identification, and attitudes toward government firearm regulation.