Understanding the circumstances and stakeholder perceptions of gun violence restraining order use in California: A qualitative study

• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Rocco Pallin,Elizabeth Tomsich,Julia P. Schleimer,Veronica A. Pear,Amanda Charbonneau,Garen J. Wintemute,Christopher E. Knoepke
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12560

DOI: ./- .

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Understanding the circumstances and

stakeholder perceptions of gun violence

restraining order use in California: A qualitative

study

Rocco Pallin1Elizabeth Tomsich1Julia P. Schleimer1

Veron ic a A. Pea r1Amanda Charbonneau1,2

Garen J. Wintemute1Christopher E. Knoepke3,4

Violence Prevention Research Program,

Department of Emergency Medicine, UC

Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento,

California, USA

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica,

California, USA

Division of Cardiology, University of

Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora,

Colorado, USA

Adult and Child Consortium for

Outcomes Research and Delivery Science,

University of Colorado School of

Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA

Correspondence

RoccoPallin, Violence Prevention

ResearchProgram, Department of Emer-

gencyMedicine, UC Davis School of

Medicine, Stockton Blvd, Sacramento,

CA, USA.

Email:rspallin@ucdavis.edu

Abstract

Research Summary: Risk-based firearm removal poli-

cies are relatively new,and research on their implemen-

tation and effectiveness is limited. Using an interpretive

phenomenological approach, we interviewed stake-

holders in California’s gun violence restraining order

(GVRO) process to learn about circumstances in which

GVROs are appropriate. Two primary themes emerged:

() GVROs are most useful when there is acute risk of

harm with a firearm, in the context of cognitive decline,

or as related cases proceed through the courts, and ()

GVROs fill a gap in the policy landscape. Perceptions

varied regarding the role of GVROs among preexisting

violence prevention tools. Several informants perceived

racial/ethnic disparities in GVRO use.

Policy Implications: Understanding practitioners’ per-

ceptions of GVRO utility may help inform implemen-

tation and ensure that these policies equitably improve

public health and safety.These results highlight the need

for additional research on the impact of GVROs and

possible disparities in use.

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. ©  American Society of Criminology 755wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp

756 PALLIN .

KEYWORDS

ERPO, extreme risk protection order, firearm injury prevention,

gun violence, gun violence restraining order, GVRO, interpretive

phenomenological approach, policy, qualitative research

1 INTRODUCTION

As of July ,  states and the District of Columbia have risk-based firearm removal poli-

cies,  of which have been enacted since the  mass shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas

High School in Parkland, FL. These orders—known formally as gun violence restraining orders

(GVROs) in California or extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) elsewhere, and colloquially as

“red flag” orders—are civil court actions that temporarily prohibit the purchase and possession

of firearms and ammunition by persons deemed at high, near-term risk of harming themselves or

others.

Recent mass shootings, including those at a supermarket in Boulder, CO in March  and

at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis, IN in April , highlight variability in how these orders are

applied to individual cases, even when circumstances seem to support their use to promote pub-

lic safety. For example, in Colorado, the assailant’s family had been concerned about his access

to firearms in light of previous mental health and legal problems—including a conviction for vio-

lently attacking a high school classmate—but this concern never translated into anything that

would have prevented him from legally purchasing the firearms used in the shooting (Bradbury,

). In Indiana, police went so far as to recover a firearm from the eventual attacker after fol-

lowing up on a report made by his mother about her concerns for his mental health, but they

did not apply to get one of the state’s warrant-based orders (which would have allowed them to

recover other weapons from his possession and prevent him from legally obtaining any others)

(Watkins et al., ). In light of such inconsistent application, the current study investigates the

perspectives of stakeholders who have experience with the GVROlaw in California. We aimed to

understand under what circumstances experienced practitioners choose to petition for a GVRO

given the alternative remedies available.

California’s GVRO law took effect on January , . There are three types of GVROs: emer-

gency and ex parte GVROs, and GVROs issued after notice and a hearing. Only lawenforcement

may petition for emergency GVROs, which can be issued verbally by a judge  h a day. If the

emergency order is granted, lawenforcement immediately requests that all firearms and ammuni-

tion are turned over. Lawenforcement, family members, cohabitants, and (as of September )

employers, coworkers, or school employees or teachers may petition for an ex parte GVRO. For

an ex parte order to be granted, the petitioner must demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the

respondent will harm themselves or others in the near future. Upon service, a respondent to an

ex parte GVRO has  h to submit their firearm(s) to lawenforcement or a licensed firearm dealer

for the duration of the order. Emergency and exparte GVROs last up to  weeks, at which point a

hearing is held to determine whether to terminate or extend the order for (as of September )

up to  years. Upon the expiration or termination of a GVRO, a respondent may recover their

firearms so long as a new prohibiting incident has not taken place.

The GVRO is unique among various civil and criminal justice system actions resulting in

a prohibition on firearm purchasing and possession, including domestic violence restraining

orders (DVROs), elder or dependent abuse restrainingorders, civil harassment restraining orders,