Introduction
In 2014, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published a “Resource Document on Access to Firearms by People with Mental Disorders” which addressed the complex relationship between firearms, mental illness, suicide, and violence. The document highlighted the limitations of existing legislative strategies, such as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), in combating the problems of gun-related suicide and violence in the United States. It noted that registries like NICS can be helpful in some situations, but they are minimally effective in identifying people at acute risk of harm to self or others. In addition, they can unfairly stigmatize individuals with mental illness. As an alternative strategy, the resource document considered a different type of law: that which temporarily restricts access to firearms during a crisis, regardless of mental health diagnosis. Such laws, which had been implemented in Indiana, Connecticut, and California at the time, are risk-based and not tied directly to mental illness or histories of adjudicated civil commitment. Preliminary data indicated that the laws were particularly effective as a suicide prevention strategy, and they deserved further study as a violence reduction measure. Since the publication of the 2014 resource document, the national dialogue on gun violence has progressed, including further consideration of risk-based firearm restriction.
The current resource document summarizes the growing body of research surrounding risk-based firearm removal laws. These laws go by several names: gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) risk-based gun removal dangerous persons firearms seizure extreme risk protection orders and others. They have also been loosely referenced as “Red Flag Laws” because of their ability to initiate a process for firearm removal when a “red flag” of concern about an individual’s firearm possession is raised by his or her conduct.
In this document, we use the term “risk-based gun removal laws” to include legislation that aims to restrict access to firearms temporarily for individuals determined to be acutely dangerous to themselves or others. At the time of this writing, four states—Connecticut, Indiana, Washington and California—had enacted laws that allow clinicians or family members to initiate firearm removal based on dangerousness, regardless of psychiatric diagnosis. Several other states have similar laws allowing firearm removal by law enforcement officers and still more states are actively considering implementation of risk-based gun removal programs. In addition, President Trump and the National Rifle Association recently endorsed these laws after another tragic mass shooting event. Given the rapidly shifting legislative landscape around this issue, this document limits its discussion to the Connecticut, Indiana, Washington, and California laws, which serve as illustrative examples of risk-based gun removal legislation.
Citation
Reena Kapoor et al., Resource Document on Risk-Based Gun Removal Laws, 17 Focus 443–451 (2019).