Perceived consequences of extreme risk protection orders: A qualitative study of respondents from California
- 1Centers for Violence Prevention, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, United States of America
- 2Firearm Injury Prevention Initiative, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
- 3Center for Gun Violence Solutions, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
Abstract
Background: Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) temporarily prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms by people at high risk of harming themselves or others. This study drew on the experiences of ERPO respondents to learn about the perceived short- and long-term consequences of the law. Methods: For this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted 24 semi-structured interviews between March and November 2024 with respondents to ERPOs issued in California between 2016 and 2020. We purposively sampled 250 respondents for whom we had previously abstracted ERPO court case data to ensure adequate representation across domains of interest (e.g., demographics, location) and invited respondents to participate in the study by mail. All interviews were recorded, double coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Our diverse participants described heterogeneous consequences across 4 domains: violence risk, legal/economic outcomes, opinions/attitudes, and social/emotional wellbeing. Two participants believed their ERPOs prevented violence and 1 was unsure; the rest believed that they would not have committed violence irrespective of the ERPO. Some perceived the ERPO to have had negligible effects on their lives, while others described both positive consequences, including self-reflection and behavior change, and negative consequences, including employment or housing difficulties, stigmatization, damaged relationships, loss of trust in legal institutions, and perceived exacerbation of violence risk. Participants reported that they were not connected to mental health care or other supportive services through the ERPO process. Conclusions: Participants perceived ERPOs to have varied and mixed consequences. These accounts identify outcomes that warrant consideration in ERPO research, policy, and implementation. Future research should assess the prevalence and distribution of these consequences and evaluate whether policy refinements can reduce adverse experiences without compromising the public health benefits of these laws.
Related
- Associations among perceived negative consequences, perceived deterioration in well-being, fear of progression, and probable depression in Chinese adults with chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional path analysis.
- Reasons for electronic cigarette initiation and perceived risks in Golestan Province, Iran: a qualitative study
- Antiretroviral therapy, perceived health, and fertility decision-making among people living with HIV: a qualitative study at a district antiretroviral therapy clinic in the Ashanti Region, Ghana
- Heat exposure and perceived academic functioning among nursing students in a tropical higher education setting: a qualitative study
- Fertility protection needs, experiences, and decision-making of women with unintended pregnancies: a qualitative study
BibTeX
@article{pear2026perceived,
title = {{Perceived consequences of extreme risk protection orders: A qualitative study of respondents from California}},
author = {Veronica A. Pear and Christopher E. Knoepke and Lisa B. Geller and Amy Barnhorst and Ari Davis and Rose Kim and Garen J. Wintemute},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0361337},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361337},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Perceived consequences of extreme risk protection orders: A qualitative study of respondents from California
AU - Veronica A. Pear
AU - Christopher E. Knoepke
AU - Lisa B. Geller
AU - Amy Barnhorst
AU - Ari Davis
AU - Rose Kim
AU - Garen J. Wintemute
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0361337
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0361337
AB - Background: Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) temporarily prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms by people at high risk of harming themselves or others. This study drew on the experiences of ERPO respondents to learn about the perceived short- and long-term consequences of the law. Methods: For this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted 24 semi-structured interviews between March and November 2024 with respondents to ERPOs issued in California between 2016 and 2020. We purposively sampled 250 respondents for whom we had previously abstracted ERPO court case data to ensure adequate representation across domains of interest (e.g., demographics, location) and invited respondents to participate in the study by mail. All interviews were recorded, double coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Our diverse participants described heterogeneous consequences across 4 domains: violence risk, legal/economic outcomes, opinions/attitudes, and social/emotional wellbeing. Two participants believed their ERPOs prevented violence and 1 was unsure; the rest believed that they would not have committed violence irrespective of the ERPO. Some perceived the ERPO to have had negligible effects on their lives, while others described both positive consequences, including self-reflection and behavior change, and negative consequences, including employment or housing difficulties, stigmatization, damaged relationships, loss of trust in legal institutions, and perceived exacerbation of violence risk. Participants reported that they were not connected to mental health care or other supportive services through the ERPO process. Conclusions: Participants perceived ERPOs to have varied and mixed consequences. These accounts identify outcomes that warrant consideration in ERPO research, policy, and implementation. Future research should assess the prevalence and distribution of these consequences and evaluate whether policy refinements can reduce adverse experiences without compromising the public health benefits of these laws.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -