Citation

Pallin R, Tomsich E, Schleimer JP, Pear VA, Charbonneau AK, Wintemute GJ, Knoepke CE. Criminol. Public Policy 2021; 20(4): 755-773.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, American Society of Criminology, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/1745-9133.12560

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Research Summary Risk-based firearm removal policies are relatively new, and research on their implementation and effectiveness is limited. Using an interpretive phenomenological approach, we interviewed stakeholders in California's gun violence restraining order (GVRO) process to learn about circumstances in which GVROs are appropriate. Two primary themes emerged: (1) GVROs are most useful when there is acute risk of harm with a firearm, in the context of cognitive decline, or as related cases proceed through the courts, and (2) GVROs fill a gap in the policy landscape. Perceptions varied regarding the role of GVROs among preexisting violence prevention tools. Several informants perceived racial/ethnic disparities in GVRO use. Policy Implications Understanding practitioners' perceptions of GVRO utility may help inform implementation and ensure that these policies equitably improve public health and safety. These results highlight the need for additional research on the impact of GVROs and possible disparities in use.

Language: en

Keywords

ERPO; extreme risk protection order; firearm injury prevention; gun violence; gun violence restraining order; GVRO; interpretive phenomenological approach; policy; qualitative research