Scholarlink

Background <p>Firearm violence is a critical public health issue in the United States. Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws have been enacted in many states to prevent firearm violence, including mass violence. Oregon’s ERPO law allows family/household members or law enforcement officers to petition a civil court for an order to temporarily restrict a person’s access to firearms when at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. This study examined the characteristics of ERPO petitions filed in Oregon that involved mass violence threats.</p> Methods <p>ERPO court records for petitions filed from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023 were obtained through the Oregon Judicial Case Information Network and abstracted; double coding was completed to assess interrater reliability. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine characteristics of ERPO petitions filed to prevent mass violence. These petitions were compared to those without mass violence threats using Fisher’s exact tests and the Wilcoxon rank sum test.</p> Results <p>From 2018 to 2023, 835 ERPO petitions were filed, of which 92 (11.0%) cited a risk of mass violence. ERPO petitions citing threats of mass violence were more likely to be granted (90.2%) than those without such threats (76.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.002). Risks of mass violence to schools or college campuses, specifically, were cited in 27 petitions, all of which were granted. Law enforcement officers filed a larger proportion of the petitions citing threats of mass violence (88.0%) than petitions without such threats (57.9%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001).</p> Conclusions <p>Our findings suggest that Oregon’s ERPO law is being used as intended to address firearm injury risk, including mass violence risk and risk to schools and college campuses. Petitions citing mass violence threats appeared to differ significantly in terms of some characteristics from those citing non-mass violence threat types, including a higher likelihood of being granted. Further research on the use of ERPOs is needed to fully understand the barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of these laws to prevent mass violence.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Use of Oregon’s Extreme Risk Protection Order law to prevent mass violence: A descriptive study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月8日

查看全文
  • Rosol Mikail,
  • Rebecca Valek,
  • Shauna Rakshe,
  • Rebecca Teichman,
  • Susan DeFrancesco,
  • Kathleen F. Carlson

摘要

Background

Firearm violence is a critical public health issue in the United States. Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws have been enacted in many states to prevent firearm violence, including mass violence. Oregon’s ERPO law allows family/household members or law enforcement officers to petition a civil court for an order to temporarily restrict a person’s access to firearms when at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. This study examined the characteristics of ERPO petitions filed in Oregon that involved mass violence threats.

Methods

ERPO court records for petitions filed from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023 were obtained through the Oregon Judicial Case Information Network and abstracted; double coding was completed to assess interrater reliability. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine characteristics of ERPO petitions filed to prevent mass violence. These petitions were compared to those without mass violence threats using Fisher’s exact tests and the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Results

From 2018 to 2023, 835 ERPO petitions were filed, of which 92 (11.0%) cited a risk of mass violence. ERPO petitions citing threats of mass violence were more likely to be granted (90.2%) than those without such threats (76.3%; p = 0.002). Risks of mass violence to schools or college campuses, specifically, were cited in 27 petitions, all of which were granted. Law enforcement officers filed a larger proportion of the petitions citing threats of mass violence (88.0%) than petitions without such threats (57.9%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that Oregon’s ERPO law is being used as intended to address firearm injury risk, including mass violence risk and risk to schools and college campuses. Petitions citing mass violence threats appeared to differ significantly in terms of some characteristics from those citing non-mass violence threat types, including a higher likelihood of being granted. Further research on the use of ERPOs is needed to fully understand the barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of these laws to prevent mass violence.