scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Leslie M. Barnard

Other affiliations: Anschutz Medical Campus
Bio: Leslie M. Barnard is an academic researcher from Colorado School of Public Health. The author has contributed to research in topics: Law enforcement & Population. The author has co-authored 1 publications. Previous affiliations of Leslie M. Barnard include Anschutz Medical Campus.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
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.

3 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: GVROs were used most often by law enforcement officers to prevent firearm assault/homicide and post-GVRO firearm fatalities among respondents were rare, and future studies should investigate additional respondent outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity.
Abstract: Background Gun violence restraining orders (GVROs), implemented in California in 2016, temporarily prohibit individuals at high risk of violence from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition. We sought to describe the circumstances giving rise to GVROs issued 2016–2018, provide details about the GVRO process and quantify mortality outcomes for individuals subject to these orders (‘respondents’). Methods For this cross-sectional description of GVRO respondents, 2016–2018, we abstracted case details from court files and used LexisNexis to link respondents to mortality data through August 2020. Results We abstracted information for 201 respondents with accessible court records. Respondents were mostly white (61.2%) and men (93.5%). Fifty-four per cent of cases involved potential harm to others alone, 15.3% involved potential harm to self alone and 25.2% involved both. Mass shooting threats occurred in 28.7% of cases. Ninety-six and one half per cent of petitioners were law enforcement officers and one-in-three cases resulted in arrest on order service. One-year orders after a hearing (following 21-day emergency/temporary orders) were issued in 53.5% of cases. Most (84.2%) respondents owned at least one firearm, and firearms were removed in 55.9% of cases. Of the 379 respondents matched by LexisNexis, 7 (1.8%) died after the GVRO was issued: one from a self-inflicted firearm injury that was itself the reason for the GVRO and the others from causes unrelated to violence. Conclusions GVROs were used most often by law enforcement officers to prevent firearm assault/homicide and post-GVRO firearm fatalities among respondents were rare. Future studies should investigate additional respondent outcomes and potential sources of heterogeneity.

6 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors present the rationale behind four types of laws that restrict access to firearms for those who are deemed to be a high risk for future gun violence and two types of firearm purchase prohibitions.
Abstract: We present the rationale behind four types of laws that restrict access to firearms for those who are deemed to be a high risk for future gun violence and two types of laws that implement firearm purchase prohibitions. We also present evidence on the effectiveness of these laws. Broadly, these are laws that restrict access for domestic violence abusers, individuals convicted of misdemeanor violence, and individuals at high risk of violence against themselves or others. We briefly discuss relinquishment of firearms by those who are newly restricted, but we focus mainly on how purchase restrictions are implemented by the federal government and across states. Extant research shows that well-implemented firearm policy that is based on evidence-based risk factors can be effective in reducing firearm injury.

2 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Extreme risk protection orders (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 as discussed by the authors .
Abstract: 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.