Do 'red flag' laws really work to prevent gun violence? An expert weighs in

[MUSIC PLAYING] INTERVIEWER: Also at the Capitol, today the Minnesota House votes on a huge public safety bill. The bill funds a lot of programs and includes new policies that affect gun ownership. Last week, a conference committee added language to that bill that would expand background checks for gun transactions between private parties. It also added a provision that some call a red-flag bill to allow law enforcement to temporarily take guns from persons believed to be a risk to themselves or to others.

The state senate approved a similar bill Friday night. So-called red-flag laws have popped up all over the US as a response to increased gun violence. Jennifer Paruk researches extreme risk protection orders at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Michigan. She's joining us right now to explain how effective these laws really are. Professor, thanks for taking the time.

JENNIFER PARUK: Yes, I'm happy to speak with you.

INTERVIEWER: You research extreme risk protection orders. They're also called red-flag laws. What exactly are they?

JENNIFER PARUK: Yes, so red flags, ERPOs, extreme risk protection orders, are civil orders. So they do not go through the criminal court process. So 19 states and DC have these laws, and the process varies slightly across these states. But in general, the process is a petitioner files an ERPO petition with the court. And in it, they describe how that person is at risk of harming themselves or others.

And then if the petitioner requests a temporary hearing, the court will hear that petition really soon. For example, that day, without notice of the person who's at risk. And if that temporary order is granted, the person is prohibited from firearms until the hearing, which is typically scheduled for about two weeks later. And then at that hearing, if the court grants the ERPO, the persons who's at risk is prohibited from firearms for a temporary period of time, which is typically about one year.

INTERVIEWER: But it sounds as though states have differing laws in terms of how this proceeds, who can report someone, whether the guns are confiscated immediately. So there seems to be kind of a patchwork, right?

JENNIFER PARUK: Yes, the process is pretty relatively standard across states, but yes. For example, in some states, in Florida, only law enforcement is allowed to petition. And in other states, family and household members are also allowed to petition.

INTERVIEWER: Now the argument made is that the temporary removal of guns from someone who's at risk to themselves and others will save lives. But what's the evidence?

JENNIFER PARUK: Yes, so a majority of these ERPO laws were enacted starting in 2018. So these laws are relatively new and are just beginning to be used in some states. And so we're still learning about the efficacy of these laws. However, there is promising evidence that ERPOs can prevent suicide. So to give you some context, in suicide attempts, the method matters. Approximately 90% of suicide attempts with a firearm are fatal compared to 2% of suicide attempts by drug poisoning.

And often, the time from deciding to attempt suicide to actually attempting suicide is short. And the method that people use is what's commonly available. And so therefore, when someone's at imminent risk of harming themselves, ERPOs are a tool to intervene and prevent firearm access for a temporary period of time and thereby prevent suicide.

And so researchers have found that ERPOs are being used when there is a risk of suicide, and there is a small body of evidence to suggest that ERPOs may reduce firearm suicide. But as I said, we need more research to fully understand their effect on suicide.

INTERVIEWER: I'm glad you brought up suicide because I believe 69, close to 70% of gun-related death in Minnesota were suicides. Here's my question about that though. Even with the red-flag laws-- maybe we can focus on those who wish to commit suicide-- is our system set up to properly identify and lessen the risk from individuals who might be willing to hurt themselves or others?

JENNIFER PARUK: So what these laws would do would allow family members and law enforcement to intervene and reduce firearm injury, yes.

INTERVIEWER: OK. And what's the follow-up help for those in crisis? I mean, you can take a gun away from someone, but there are a number of ways to get another if a person is focused on getting one.

JENNIFER PARUK: Yes, so these laws would prevent them from access or possession. So even if someone-- if they're in their home, someone has firearms in their home, family members would have to lock up their firearms and make sure that the person who's at risk and under an ERPO would not be able to access these firearms.

INTERVIEWER: I guess the larger question is so once the gun is confiscated, is there any mechanism to get the person help?

JENNIFER PARUK: So some states allow the order to come along with an evaluation for a mental health evaluation or a chemical dependency evaluation, but that's just in some states. These laws are really designed just to reduce access to firearms.

INTERVIEWER: Mm-hm. There is some research, I understand, that red-flag laws passed in other states don't get a lot of use. It's as if they aren't laws at all. Have you heard of this at this point? And how might implementation be a bit better across the board?

JENNIFER PARUK: Yeah, so implementation matters a lot. So after a state passes an ERPO law, it's important to educate the public on what ERPOs are, who can file them. Because as I said, in some states, it's just law enforcement. In other states, family and household members. In other states, it's health practitioners. And also, inform everyone what the process is.

So one study surveyed California residents and found that 65% of the people surveyed had not heard of their state's ERPO law. So ERPOs can't have an effect if they're not being used. And so it's also important to develop policies and training so that law enforcement and courts know how to handle these new types of civil cases.

INTERVIEWER: As you know, opponents are concerned about due process issues. What of other states-- how have other states handled that?

JENNIFER PARUK: Yeah, so due process is built into the ERPO process. So a judge is the person deciding if the temporary and final ERPOs should be issued. At the hearings, the petitioner has the burden of proof. At the final hearing, the respondent, the person who's at risk, can bring witnesses. And courts have found that ERPO laws do not violate due process laws. And additionally, in state ERPO laws, it's typically a crime to file an ERPO to harass another person or to file false information in the ERPO petition.

INTERVIEWER: I know you've said that these laws, there's not a lot of-- we don't have a lot of evidence at this point. I mean, they're fairly new, right? So in the years to come, what will you be looking for, as a researcher?

JENNIFER PARUK: Yeah, so there's research in the works right now more on how ERPOs are associated with a decreased risk of suicide. There is also research out there right now on how ERPOs are being used in mass shootings, to prevent mass shootings. So I was part of a study that analyzed all of the ERPOs from six states. And we found that 10% of ERPOs are being filed after mass shooting threats.

So mass shooters sometimes tell someone about their plans, giving an opportunity to intervene. So for an example, one of the ERPO petitions from Oregon, the person called a high school making threats, causing that high school to go into lockdown. And an ERPO petition was then filed. So we'll also be looking more at how ERPOs can prevent mass shootings and how ERPOs can be used to prevent interpersonal violence as well.

INTERVIEWER: Hmm, interesting. I appreciate your time and your work. Thank you so much.

JENNIFER PARUK: Yes, thank you for talking with me.

INTERVIEWER: Jennifer Paruk has been with us, a researcher in the Criminal Justice School at the University of Michigan. And by the way, if you or someone you know is thinking of hurting themselves, you can call 988. That is the mental health crisis hotline in this country.