By V A Pear , J P Schleimer , A J Aubel , S Buggs , C E Knoepke , R Pallin , A B Shev , E Tomsich , G J Wintemute , N Kravitz-Wirtz

Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) provide a civil mechanism to temporarily remove firearm access from individuals at high risk of harming themselves or others. Evidence and theory suggest that ERPOs can prevent firearm-related harm, but the policy's impact on racial/ethnic equity is largely unknown. To examine potential inequities by race/ethnicity in public perceptions and use of California's ERPO law, we drew on two complementary data sources: 1) a 2020 state-representative survey of California adults, and 2) ERPO court documents for the first 3 years of policy implementation (2016-2018). Majorities (54-89%) of all racial/ethnic groups reported that ERPOs are at least sometimes appropriate, and 64-94% were willing to ask a judge for an ERPO for a family member. However, Black and Hispanic/Latinx survey participants less often perceived ERPOs as appropriate and were less willing to serve as petitioners, with Black participants citing lack of knowledge about ERPOs and not trusting the system to be fair as their top reasons for unwillingness. Similarly, review of ERPO court documents revealed that no family or household members served as petitioners for Black and Hispanic/Latinx ERPO respondents. Additionally, Black respondents were the least likely to have documented access to a firearm and legal representation in court. Racial/ethnic equity in ERPO use may be improved by reducing barriers to petitioning, incorporating non-law enforcement intervention professionals like behavioral health specialists into the ERPO process, providing legal assistance to respondents and petitioners, and investing in the social safety net.

Prev Med. 2022 Dec;165(Pt A):107181. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107181. Epub 2022 Aug 6. PMID: 35940474.

By Rod K. Brunson , Brian A. Wade , Brooklynn K. Hitchens

Precarious firearm conduct among inexperienced gun possessors has the potential to intensify firearm-related fatalities and injuries. The current study involves face-to-face interviews with 51 high-risk (and prohibited) residents of Brooklyn and the Bronx, NY, each of whom have either been shot or shot at. We analyze study participants’ lived experiences regarding urban gun violence (including as victims and perpetrators), firearm handling, sharing, and improper storage. Despite claiming to be knowledgeable about firearm fundamentals, the vast majority of respondents acknowledged never having received professional instruction, but rather “figured it out” by “playing around” with available guns. These informal methods were shaped by respondents’ desire to arm themselves despite inadequate access to firearm training. Study participants also described routinely stashing firearms in unsecure, easily accessible locations. Our study findings have important implications for informing community-based harm reduction and safety strategies among persons within high-risk networks.

Preventive Medicine, Volume 165, Part A, December 2022

By Christoph Koenig and David Schindler 

  Do firearm purchase delay laws reduce aggregate homicide levels? Using variation from a 6-month countrywide gun demand shock in 2012/2013, we show that U.S. states with legislation preventing immediate handgun purchases experienced smaller increases in handgun sales. Our findings indicate that this is likely driven by comparatively lower purchases among impulsive consumers. We then demonstrate that states with purchase delays also witnessed comparatively 2% lower homicide rates during the same period. Further evidence shows that lower handgun sales coincided primarily with fewer impulsive assaults and points towards reduced acts of domestic violence.   

Discussion Paper 20 / 730  

Bristol, UK: Bristol University, School of Economics, 2020. 70p.

By  Eric Ruben

Gun rights supporters appear to be on the cusp of achieving a decades-long goal: defanging licensing laws nationwide for carrying handguns in public. More than twenty states have removed all licensing requirements for concealed carry, and most of the others now require little more than a background check.  At oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, meanwhile, the Supreme Court seemed poised to strike down policies in the remaining states that limit licenses to those who can show a heightened need, or “proper cause,” to carry a gun. If that happens, what comes next?

More people carrying guns in public can have negative consequences. Among other things, additional gun carriers might engage in more serious crimes than they otherwise would and might threaten the public sphere in ways beyond deaths and injuries. Under those circumstances, regulation will remain a priority in much of the country. With strong licensing regimes off the table, a key focal point will be how criminal law otherwise governs gun carry and use.

This Essay highlights two intersections between criminal law and public carry beyond licensing: the “he was going for my gun” defense invoked in several recent, high-profile trials and the deadly weapon doctrine. These intersections show how criminal law can both grant legal benefits to and erect legal hurdles for those who chose to carry a gun in public. On one hand, the “he was going for my gun” defense advantages armed defendants with greater legal leeway to use deadly defensive force, lest they be disarmed. On the other hand, the deadly weapon doctrine disadvantages such defendants by allowing juries to infer requisite mens rea for murder from the use of a gun in a homicide. If the ability to restrict public carry directly through meaningful licensing regimes becomes politically or constitutionally infeasible, judges, policymakers, and scholars will need to consider the propriety and efficacy of criminal law mechanisms like these to achieve optimal outcomes in a world where many more people will be armed.

Harvard Law Review, VOLUME 135. ISSUE 8. JUNE 2022

By The  U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, and later that year, on November 12th, the shooting and killing of Jordan Davis triggered a national controversy over the legislated criminal defense called “stand your ground.” These laws expanded the self-defense principles of the castle doctrine to situations and areas outside the curtilage of a home. It also expanded the principle of self-defense to a lesser justification standard than that of justifiable homicide. The United States Commission on Civil Rights opened its own inquiry on the subject in May 2013, and in October 2014, held a hearing in Florida. The transcript of that hearing forms the main body of that report. Unlike other hearings or briefings, the work of the Commission was conceived as an investigation, on a bipartisan vote made possible by the vote of then-Vice-Chair Abigail Thernstrom.  We are here presented with only the testimony heard in Florida five years ago, as well as research and public information subsequent, but that does not prevent members of this Commission to state their observations on an issue that continues to trouble our nation to this day. And so my statement begins. The question we asked then, and we ask now, continues to be: do Stand Your Ground laws have an unacceptable racial bias in their application in the criminal justice system. What we do know, and what we cannot ignore, is that the same racial biases that have permeated our criminal justice system cannot be separated from this issue. When you consider the racial disparities in selective prosecution and sentencing that have been amply documented in the literature is it any wonder that a law like Stand Your Ground, which in effect grants both powers to an individual under the guise of self-defense would suffer similar maladies?

Washington, DC: USCCR, 2020. 386p.

By Davis, Ari; Kim, Rose; Crifasi, Cassandra K.

From the document: "Gun violence is an ongoing public health crisis in the United States that impacts the health and wellbeing of all of us. [...] Fortunately, there are evidence-based, equitable solutions to prevent gun violence. These solutions are supported by most people, including gun owners. In spite of this wide support, many policymakers have been unwilling to follow the evidence and enact policies that will save lives. Each year it is our mission to provide policymakers and the public accurate and up-to-date data on gun fatalities and illustrate the enormous toll gun violence has on our country. This report is an update of 'A Year in Review: 2020 Gun Deaths in the U.S.' [hyperlink] It uses 2021 firearm fatality data released by the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] in January 2023. We recognize that each data point discussed in this report is a person who died by gun violence. This loss has an immeasurable impact on families, friends, and communities; data can only partly illuminate the true burden of gun violence. In addition to analyzing the data, we must listen to and uplift the voices of those directly impacted by gun violence, their loved ones, and their communities. Yet even on its own, the 2021 CDC data paints an alarming picture of the epidemic of gun violence. [...] By leveraging the data outlined in this report, we can improve gun violence prevention strategies and create a more peaceful future, free from gun violence."

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School Of Public Health; Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Violence Solutions. 2023. 45p