Adapted from a press release written by Kate Barnes, University of Michigan
According to a new study, a Florida law designed to prevent gun violence by temporarily removing firearms from people at risk of harming themselves or others is used unevenly across the state. These findings could help researchers and policymakers evaluate the law’s effectiveness as a public health tool, and raise important questions about equity and access.
Led by Assistant Professor of Medicine, Health, and Society Julie Ward, in collaboration with the University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins University, the study examined more than 8,600 Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) petitions filed between March 2018 and December 2021 across 65 Florida counties to assess trends in use and variation.
The Extreme Risk Protection Order law, or “red flag” law, allows law enforcement officers to petition a court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to firearms if they are considered a danger to themselves or others. Judges can then issue an ERPO requiring firearms to be surrendered for a set period of time.
“ERPOs are a policy tool that consistently see high levels of support from the public, regardless of political affiliation, race and ethnicity, or gun ownership status,” Ward said. “By asking these real-world questions about how ERPOs are used, who is affected by them, and what factors contribute to differences in policy access, this research aims to strengthen ERPOs’ protective benefits, which the public tells us they want and expect from these policies.”
Florida passed its ERPO law in 2018 in response to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Among the 22 states with similar laws, Florida has issued the greatest number of ERPOs.
Published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the study found that while use of the law increased over time, counties differed substantially in how often they filed ERPO petitions. Some counties made extensive use of the policy, while others filed relatively few petitions or even none during the same period. The findings suggest that local factors, including available resources, training, or law enforcement practices, may influence how consistently the law is implemented.
The study also identified demographic differences in how ERPOs were used. Overall, ERPOs were more frequently issued for white individuals. However, in counties with moderate to high levels of ERPO use, Black individuals experienced similar or higher rates of petitioning. Women and older adults were consistently underrepresented among those subject to ERPO petitions.
“These findings offer a more detailed view of just how variable policy use can be,” Ward said. “This is important because safety advocates invest a lot of time and effort to advance more protective gun policies. Even after a policy is enacted, that’s still just the beginning. Policy tools are only effective if they are used, and it’s critical that when they are used, they are used equitably and fairly. Having this better understanding of who has experienced ERPOs and how use has varied over time and place gives us more clues about how and why local jurisdictions implement these policies differently.”
ERPOs are intended to reduce firearm-related harms, including suicide and person-on-person violence. However, as the findings note, inconsistent use across jurisdictions may limit their overall impact, suggesting a need for more standardized implementation and additional guidance for consistent application.
“Understanding how these orders are used in practice is essential to evaluating their effectiveness as a public health tool,” said April Zeoli, associate professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. “These patterns raise important questions about equity and access and highlight the need for further investigation into how such laws are applied.”
The research was supported by grants from the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, with additional support from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Vanderbilt Center for Research on Inequality and Health Small Grants Program. Further support was provided by the Vanderbilt University Summer Research Program.