Five Years of Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Oregon: A Descriptive Analysis.

Rakshe S, Valek R, Teichman R, Freeman K, DeFrancesco S, Carlson KF. Five Years of Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Oregon: A Descriptive Analysis. Psychological reports. 2024 Apr 26; 332941241248599.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws have received increasing attention as a tool to prevent firearm suicide and homicide, including mass shootings. However, important gaps remain in our understanding of ERPO usage and implementation. Using the Oregon Judicial Case Information Network database, we abstracted data from all ERPO petitions filed in Oregon from 2018 to 2022, the first five years after the law took effect ( = 649). ERPO petitions were filed in 29 of 36 counties (81%, range 0-105 per county, median 11), against respondents 17-96 years of age (median: 42). Of ERPOs filed, 78% were initially granted. While only 22% of respondents in initially-granted ERPOs requested a hearing, when a hearing was held, nearly half (44%) of ERPOs were dismissed. The majority of ERPO petitions were motivated by threats of harm to respondents and others ( = 327, 50%), followed by threats of harm to others-only ( = 220, 34%) or respondents-only ( = 81, 12%). During the 5-year period, 72 (11%) ERPO petitions cited threats of mass violence as a motivating factor, including 24 (4%) petitions citing threats to schools or college campuses. The majority of ERPOs were filed by law enforcement officers (60%), and these petitions were significantly more often granted than those filed by family/household members (96% vs. 67%, < .0001). We also found evidence of important gaps in documentation, including of respondent race (unavailable for 191 respondents, 29%) and of weapon removal or disposition after the ERPO was granted (unavailable in 350 cases, 69%). This study of long-term patterns of ERPO petitions highlights trends in usage and suggests areas where improvement may be possible, with implications for other states that have adopted or are considering similar ERPO laws.