Violence PreventionOctober 27, 2026
Extreme risk protection orders are designed to prevent gun violence. But how do they impact the people subject to them?
A new study from the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention examines the benefits and harms reported by people subject to extreme risk protection orders
(SACRAMENTO)
About 125 people die from gun violence through homicide or suicide in the United States every day. Many more are injured by firearms.
Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), known in California as gun violence restraining orders, are designed to keep firearms temporarily away from people at risk of harming themselves or others. While previous research has focused on whether these orders prevent violence, a new study from the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention examines a different question: What consequences — including violence prevention — do people subject to these orders attribute to them?
Detailed answers are now published in PLOS One, Public Library of Science. The paper is the first to draw directly on the experiences of people subject to ERPOs.
Methods
Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 24 people who had been issued ERPOs in California between 2016 and 2020. The interviews, conducted from March through November 2024, were transcribed and analyzed by two researchers to identify common themes and important differences in participants' experiences.
Findings
Participants reported a wide range of consequences after being issued an ERPO:
- Some perceived little impact, while others described benefits and harms related to violence risk, legal and economic outcomes, opinions and attitudes, and social and emotional wellbeing.
- Two participants believed their orders prevented violence, and one was unsure. Most participants believed they would not have committed violence regardless of the order. A few described perceived increases in suicidal or violent thoughts, while others said the experience prompted self-reflection and positive behavioral changes.
- Some participants reported employment or housing difficulties when the order appeared on background checks. They also noted stigmatization, damaged relationships and reduced trust in the legal system.
- None of the participants said the ERPO process itself connected them with mental health care, substance-use treatment, or other supportive services.
The findings illustrate that respondents' experiences are not uniform. This suggests that evaluations of ERPO laws should consider a broader range of outcomes in addition to violence prevention.
“To comprehensively evaluate extreme risk protection orders, researchers and policymakers must consider their full range of consequences, including those reported by respondents themselves,” said first author Veronica Pear. Pear is a researcher at the Centers for Violence Prevention and an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Emergency Medicine. “This broader evidence can guide policy refinements that preserve these laws' public-safety benefits while reducing avoidable harms.”
Limitations and future research
The researchers caution that the study reflects participants' own accounts and cannot determine whether the ERPO itself caused the outcomes they described. They also caution that the study included only 24 respondents and is not representative of ERPO respondents generally.
However, they note the interviews provide important insight into perceived consequences that may not be captured in administrative data or measures typically used to evaluate ERPO outcomes.
Among the issues identified for future study are:
- Whether respondents could benefit from stronger connections to mental health care, substance-use treatment, or other support services.
- Whether removing an ERPO record under certain circumstances could reduce employment and housing difficulties.
- Whether procedural changes, such as access to legal representation, could improve trust in the legal process while maintaining public-safety goals.
“Extreme risk protection orders are intended to prevent tragic outcomes, and research suggests they can reduce suicide risk,” said Garen Wintemute, senior author of the study. Wintemute is an emergency room physician and director of the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention. “As these laws continue to evolve, listening to respondents can help policymakers identify practical improvements in implementation while maintaining the goal of preventing violence.”
A full list of authors appears in the study.
