Extreme risk protection orders are designed to prevent gun violence. But how do they impact the people subject to them?

Extreme risk protection orders, also known as gun violence restraining orders, aim to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed at risk of self-harm or harm to others. A new study from the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention explores the impact these orders have on the people subjected to them, focusing on their perceived consequences beyond violence prevention.

Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 24 California residents who had been issued ERPOs between 2016 and 2020. The interviews, conducted in 2024, revealed a diverse range of outcomes, indicating that experiences are not uniform among ERPO subjects. This suggests that evaluating ERPO laws should consider a broader spectrum of consequences, including those reported by the respondents themselves.

Veronica Pear, the lead author and researcher at the Centers for Violence Prevention, emphasized the need for comprehensive evaluations that incorporate these perspectives. She stated that understanding the full range of consequences can inform policy refinements to maintain the laws' public safety benefits while minimizing any avoidable harms.

However, the study cautions that it reflects only the experiences of the 24 respondents and does not establish causation. With only 24 participants, the sample is not representative of the broader ERPO population. Nevertheless, the researchers believe the interviews provide valuable insight into perceived consequences that may not be captured through administrative data or standard evaluation methods.

Garen Wintemute, senior author and director of the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention, highlighted the potential of ERPOs to reduce suicide risk. As these laws evolve, he noted that listening to respondents can help policymakers identify practical improvements while upholding the goal of preventing violence.